THE REAL BATMAN CHRONOLOGY PROJECT BLOG

(My Take on) The State of Superhero Comic Criticism

I've been thinking about the state of the comic book industry, rather I should say, the state of the superhero comic book industry, which unfortunately gets often confused with other very different graphic sequential media such as manga, comix, indie cartoons, etc... Right now, the industry as a whole is a shell of its former self. Sales are dwindling in spite of the fact that the characters portrayed in the stories are the highest grossing characters in cinema today and in film history. Tim Marchman recently wrote an review in the Wall Street Journal that tangentially lambasted superhero comics' inability to draw money these days, stating that DC and Marvel have "given up on the mass audience" choosing instead to produce works that are "for sale not in a real bookstore but in a specialty shop, [...] clumsily drawn, poorly written, and incomprehensible to anyone not steeped in years of arcane mythology."

Of course, the "clumsy" drawings and "poor" writing are a matter of Marchman's own opinion. The rest seems to be more objective, but can be addressed nevertheless. DC and Marvel have always been companies designed first and foremost to make money by selling comics. However, the Big Two have never really catered to a mass audience, in spite of this fact. Comics have always been a niche market, hence the niche "specialty stores." Superhero comics cannot and should never be compared to any other graphic works in the indie realm, such as stuff by Chris Ware, Daniel Clowes, or anything that can be found at the Brooklyn Comics and Graphics Festival or Stumptown Comics Fest. However, they often are compared to these things in criticisms, by intelligent writers and bloggers like Marchman and Matt Seneca, to cite two recent examples.

Seneca, who always has put a smile on my face with his astute and brilliant commentary, recently ran-down Grant Morrison (a former hero of his) due to his corporate nature, pretentiousness, self-promotion, and unoriginality, among other complaints. Seneca acknowledges that Morrison never cared to work outside of the confines of the corporate Big Two structure, despite having promoted himself for years as an alternative to those two companies, stating, "Morrison capitalizes on a culture that discourages innovation and progress by telling a captive audience that his own staunchly unadventurous work represents those very values." Morrison's work is indeed "unadventurous" when compared with the groundbreaking art created by Ware, Clowes, the Hernandez brothers, Seth, etc... or the wonderful stuff seen in various web comics or in Kramers Ergot. Of course, Seneca's diatribe about Morrison is spot-on and I would agree with him wholeheartedly except for one important thing: Morrison (who was never a visual artist himself, a fact we should not forget) should never have been and still shouldn't be regarded as being in the same league as indie cartoonists and comix authors that operate in a completely different world. I'm not saying Morrison is better or worse; I'm simply saying that what Morrison does is incomparable to what, say Clowes, does. And what Morrison does for mainstream superhero comics, he does very well. And that is writing the best possible material he can within the constraints of the medium. I think Seneca would love if indie cartoonism was injected into superhero comics (or replaced in entirely). Hell, I'd enjoy it too to a certain extent, but what I'm emphasizing is that the two should never even be discussed in the same dialogue. I agree, guys like Morrison, Didio, Queseda, Bendis, Johns, Millar, Miller, et al have been boosting each others' egos for the past decade and really jerking each other off and patting each other on the back when it comes to guiding the course of comics universes—and also at the expense of guys like Siegel, Shuster, Kirby, and Moore. (The sheer egotism of MorrisonCon really grosses me out too.) But, to bring us full-circle back to Marchman's commentary, the world of superhero comics thrives because it is about "arcane mythology" and the constraints associated with the Big Two universes. Unlike Marchman's view of this, my view is that obsession with continuity is a good thing. Marchman also fails to note in his article that DC did just reboot its whole line, essentially paving the way for new readership (although, admittedly, the reboot has been only a little effective as a marketing strategy).

It bums me out that Marchman and Seneca's comments, while obviously very different, both seem to attack superhero comics from the standpoint of an outsider (Marchman as the Marvel/DC movie fan that cannot comprehend why superhero comics fail in comparison to the flicks and Seneca as the jaded indie cartoonist that cannot comprehend why superhero comics don't mirror indie cartoons). Marchman is the actual outsider whereas Seneca is a self-exiled expatriate. Both writers are very articulate and smart in their own ways, and I geek out when anyone can write scholarly about superhero comics, but I wish the smartest minds on the web weren't so down on the genre. These guys (and many bright others) feel that the industry owes them something that it has failed to deliver.

I should stress that I have the same complaints and concerns as Marchman, Seneca, and a ton of others. Not to mention, sales really are down, DC and Marvel shit on their creators, they are controlled by corporate mega-conglomerates, and sometimes the stories/art are subpar or low-brow. These items alone make me incredibly frustrated with the industry. However, I love comics, especially superhero comics. And it's time for positivity in regard to superhero comics. I'm not about to write-off Morrison because he's an ego-maniac who never "saved" comics by propelling them into a new century of uniqueness. Morrison was never supposed to do that, and I don't think he wants to. Alan Moore realized he never was going to be able to "save comics," so he left the industry. I commend both Morrison and Moore for doing what they did and currently do now.

Again, I can't say it enough, I love superhero comics. They revolve around a niche market, and sometimes, as I've said above, they are really bad and poorly drawn. But that just makes me love them even more. And the heavy hand of the editor/publisher can be really damn annoying, but it affects continuity and the "arcane mythology" of the universes in ways that are so unpredictable or so incredibly predictable that I can't help but delve into them wholeheartedly. Often, the disappointment and failure of a superhero arc can be just as interesting as something "successful." In the end, for better or worse, I'm just glad that the superhero comic exists as its own genre. It's not cinema and it ain't indie comix or alternative cartoons; it will never make the money that movies make or earn the respect that indie comix receive. And I'm fine with that. I just wish writers and bloggers would realize that as well. The time to criticize mainstream superhero comics is definitely here and now, but the comparisons that have been drawn as of late in order to bring down the genre don't make much sense to me.

Treading in an Uncharted Age

I've often posed the question of what the current "age" of comics should be called. For simplicity's sake, I usually refer to contemporary comics as the "New Age"--an umbrella term for DC's New 52 and Marvel's Bendis-shaped continuity that exist today.

Greg Burgas, at Comic Book Resources, has an interesting post about this topic that I thought was worth sharing.

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/05/05/what-should-we-call-this-era-of-comics/

Matt Wilson was able to recently ask a bunch of comic book scholars what they thought about this very question: To read their responses, click on the following link:

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/08/21/thought-bubble-4-age-comics-silver-age-golden-age-prismatic-age/

When was Damian born?

The question of whether or not Damian, in the New Age (New 52) was conceived and born before Bruce became Batman or during his first year as Batman has been mused upon by comic book fans and chronologists at conventions, comic shops, and on message boards for the past year. DC has yet to address this in its new comic continuity, so until they do, everything surmised is pure speculation. So far, it is my belief that Bruce trained in his early pre-Batman years with Ra's Al Ghul, met Talia around that time, knocked her up, and had little Damian. Many argue that Damian's growth was artificially sped up by League of Assassins scientists, meaning that even if he was conceived as little as five years ago, he could still look like a ten-year-old in 2011 or 2012. This doesn't really sit well with me, for a laundry list of reasons that I won't bother delving into at this juncture. (Ask me and I'll tell you why if you are truly interested!)

I've chosen a few selections from message boards and internet forums that seem to grasp the New 52 Damian conundrum with an open and enlightened mind. Note that a few of these selections quote Scott Snyder. I have yet to confirm any of the Snyder quotes and don't know where these commentators got them from. However, the quotes directly from writers and artists like James Tynion and Greg Capullo, we can take as gospel. Here are just handful of the many, many posts I've scrutinized on the web that deal not only with Damian's age and conception, but the ages of the other Bat Family members as well:

--Anonymous on the Warner Bros/DC Comics message boards/forum (Sept. 13, 2011):

"Scott Snyder has stated that Damian was conceived while Batman was training, which is in his first year. [...] He says that Bruce will float around 33-35 [years of age] in character personality. Snyder [also says] ... [Batman has been active for] roughly 10 years, roughly [33-35 years old].

--Theozilla on the CBR forum/message boards (Sept. 9, 2011):

"[Scott] Synder basically says Bruce is around 33 years old and that gives him about 12 years of activity, which all the Robins can be squeezed into."

--James Tynion IV (Batman Vol. 2 writer!) says in a CBR interview with Jeffrey Renaud (Feb. 29, 2012):

"The back-up [story in Batman Vol. 2 #8], "The Fall of the House of Wayne," is set around 33 years ago, in Bruce's infancy."

--Greg Capullo (Batman Vol. 2 artist!) on the CBR forums (Sept. 24, 2011):

"The [editor-in-chief, Bob Harras,] said [in regard for how old to make the characters look when drawing them in Batman Vol. 2 #1], ages 30 [for Bruce], 19 [—later changed to 21 for Dick], 16 [for Tim], and 10 [for Damian]."

--Grim on ComicVine message boards/forum (Nov. 22, 2011):

"The one thing you can guess for sure is that all the Robins were only Robin for 2-4 years. Dick is only in his 20s, as is Barb[ara Gordon]."

--TheLuckyOne on CBR message boards (Sept. 4, 2011):

"The ways around [continuity issues regarding Damian’s conception] ... are to either say Damian was artificially aged [quickly], or change Son of the Demon to say Bruce wasn't Batman yet when he and Talia were together."

--SeoulCanuck on CBR message boards (July 21, 2011):

"Doesn't it make more sense for Bruce to have met and trysted with Talia during his "roaming the world, learning from masters" phase, long before he ever put on the cowl? That would mean Talia hadn't drugged and raped him, of course, but it's a lot easier to accept a teenage mistake than artificially aging what would be a three-year-old into a tween's body, isn't it? Why wouldn't Talia have just made him into an adult, if she could clone and indoctrinate the clone that well? It means jettisoning a little bit of Bat-history, but DCnU certainly doesn't seem reluctant to mess with the history of their other icon."

--Vitruvian on CBR message boards (July 21, 2011):

"[The New 52] is better [off] by far to have Bruce and Talia get together while Bruce was roaming the world training himself for his war on crime; maybe even include some of the Nolan movie elements of some of that training coming from the League of Shadows, if not direct tutelage by the Demon's Head himself (or maybe that stays good, too)."

New Age (New 52) Timeline Started

I've begun rough drafting a New Age Batman Chronology aka New 52 Batman Chronology over at the Real Batman Chronology Project, so please check it out and give me notes (via e-mail if possible).

While DC still keeps calling this new multiverse "The New 52," I have not. In keeping with the linguistic tradition of properly naming superhero comic book epochs, I have dubbed this part of history–since it follows the Golden, Silver (and Bronze), and Modern Ages–the NEW AGE.

2011 brought about a major shift in the DC Universe/Multiverse/Omniverse. With the mega-crossover event Flashpoint, the world of Batman was restructured yet again. This relaunch/reboot gave unto us a brand new history for Batman, one that is still settling to this date. As always, I’m hopefully up to the arduous task of chronicling this dense history. It will be tricky, but here I go again!

This timeline is so new that it will constantly be changing as each new bit of information is revealed week-to-week. Therefore, it should be understood that it is not the finalized version and construction will be occurring for quite some time to come. Unlike our previous timelines, the New Age timeline will run each calendar year from the normal January through December format. As far as this chronology is concerned, if a story/event is not canonically referenced in the pages of the New 52 issues themselves, then I’m not considering it canon–it’s as simple as that. Of course, none of this is a strict policy and everything is subject to change.

Another initial issue I’m having that is of utmost importance: Since DC is being extremely vague as to revealing information regarding a timeline of the New 52, I’m unsure whether or not Batman debuts in the same year as Superman, or if Batman has his “urban legend” period for a few years prior to the new Action Comics Vol. 2 and Justice League Vol. 2. If Detective Comics Vol. 2 takes place during Batman's "rookie years" as well (confirmed by Tony Daniel) then I’m confused as to why, in the first issue, Daniel says Joker has been around for six years. Does this mean that Batman has been secretly active for five or six years prior to Superman’s debut? Or does this simply mean that Joker has been around since before Bruce became Batman? Hopefully, I will figure this out sooner than later. BUT, if anyone at all has any input, please let me know!

QUICK UPDATE as of 4 March 2012: I've realized that Tony Daniel's Detective run takes place "in the now," meaning 2012 (as opposed to "5 years ago"). Tony Daniel has recently confirmed that 'tec occurs in 2011-2012.

There are several versions of the New Age that I am playing around with. Each of them seems feasible at this point, but hopefully one will stand out as the "most correct" one eventually. I will now run down the different concepts.

A. The first timeline is the way I'm currently imagining the New Age chronology. In it the age of superheroes begins FIVE YEARS AGO with Batman debuting roughly a year before Superman and with the Justice League debuting a year after that--thus placing current 2012 story-lines at the beginning of a fresh Year Eight (although some stories begin in late 2011). Most Internet chronologists that have bothered to attempt a new timeline seem to be going with this version as well (or something like it). This implies two important changes from the Modern Age: one, Bruce met Ra's Al Ghul shortly before he was Batman and met and conceived a child with Talia shortly before he was Batman; and two, Dick, Jason, and Tim were each Robins for much shorter time periods.

B. In regard to the meeting of the Al Ghul family, another alternate timeline idea would be to include an extra few "hidden years" before Year One (thus making our current 2012 year, YEAR NINE or YEAR TEN or even YEAR ELEVEN instead of Year Eight), which would make it so Bruce definitively meets Ra's Al Ghul and knocks up Talia in his first year as Batman. This would curiously, in a way, synch-up the New 52 timeline with Christopher Nolan's universe--Ra's Al Ghul (and possibly Scarecrow) as the first villains in the first year, followed by Joker in the second. Version A is already kind of like that, but the extra years ostensibly give Version B more credence.

C. IN CONTRAST, I have also seen an alternative which posits that Superman and the JL both indeed debuted FIVE YEARS AGO, but that Batman has been around for five or six years prior to that--having kept out of the public eye and maintained the status of urban legend. Thus, this alternative timeline says that Batman secretly debuted ELEVEN YEARS AGO or TWELVE YEARS AGO and only publicly "came out" five years ago (placing 2012 as Year Twelve). If this is true, then it not only gives us a lot more room to work with, but it allows for more reasonable time periods for the Robins (and reasonable ages for the Robins), makes more sense in regard to the conception and birth of Damian. Also, giving us eleven years to work with instead of a mere five allots a huge chunk of extra space that we can fill with the myriad of canonical-stories-that-surely-will-be-made-canon-if-they-haven't-been-made-canon-already. However, to play devil's advocate against this alternate timeline I paraphrase vitruvian's insightful commentary from the CBR message boards: "We know that Batman was around for a while as an "urban legend" or hunted vigilante before JL Vol. 2 #1, rather than as a superhero (Superman supposedly being the first person recognized as such), but we really have no idea how long. I doubt it was a full five or six years, or that the debut of Robin predates the 'superheroic era,' since there was no indication in JL Vol. 2 #1 that vigilante Batman was known for having a kid sidekick, but who knows." Who knows indeed.

The more I think about it, Version C's Twelve Year Model (where Year 12 is 2012) seems more and more legitimate and appropriate. In Red Hood & The Outlaws, Jason mentions that he spent "years" (emphasis on the plural yearS) learning to fight crime under Batman's tutelage. This seemingly implies that the Robins were Robins for longer than a one-year period each. In the shorter Eight Year Model (Version A), the Robins only serve their sidekick posts for roughly a year each. In a Twelve Year Model, each Robin can hold his post for around two years. ALSO, with the recent canonization of elements of "Knightfall" (as per Batman: The Dark Knight Vol. 2 #6) i.e. Bane breaking Batman's back, it seems as if an extra year or two (or three or four) might be appropriate. Maybe a Batman debut in 2000 or 2001 would be correct--it certainly would allow for Damian's conception to occur during Batman's first year in action. However, the obvious counter-argument against this would be that it extends Batman's "urban legend" period to five or six years long. Also, we still have to deal with that pesky insinuation in Detective Comics Vol. 2 #1 that says Joker has been active for six years as of 2011-2012. If this fact is indeed true in the Version C's Twelve Year Model, then Batman is around for nearly six years before Joker debuts. This seems highly unlikely to the point of it being ludicrous. Joker isn't around for five or six years!? How can any of this jive? Until we get a bit more info I'm afraid I'm still grasping in the dark.

The questions and complications that arise with Version C might be too great to overcome, despite the fact that it seems the most legit. If you'd like to see what I've done so far (i.e. my Version D!) then please check out:

http://www.therealbatmanchronologyproject.com/the-dcnu/years-1-10/year-one-3/.

But what do YOU think? I'm not only looking to stimulate conversation here, but I am also seriously looking for the correct answer! Help! Send me an email at therealbatmanchronologyproject@gmail.com and deliver me some feedback, please!

--CC

Doin It and Doin It and Doin It Well... I Hope!

Speaking of (and shilling) the new website--which already has over 10,000 unique viewer hits in less than six months (thanks!)--I just thought I'd add my Intro from the new site onto here, especially since I know there are still a lot of readers that prefer (or are simply just used to) checking out the Real Batman Chronology Project on this blogspot. For those who haven't had the chance to view the Intro, here it is! Basically, this Intro explains in further detail why I felt this project was necessary, what it is all about, and why it fascinates me. It was also important for me to, in an almost disclaimer-ish way, defend myself--well, not quite defend (that's such a harsh word), but explain--that I really wanted this chronology to be non-opinionated and nonobjective as much as humanly possible. That is, I wanted this project to be scholarly and unbiased. And I hope that I've been able to achieve that goal. I've read various criticisms of my site on the web that claim that I've failed to live up to my expectations, but my hope is that the majority of my followers and readers think otherwise. Ultimately, if this project can turn into something more (i.e. an actual tangible published book or dissertation) it would mean a lot to me if it was devoid of as much fanboy-ism as possible--although, I'm a huge fanboy, so there is always going to be some sarcasm, snarkiness, impertinence, and hyperbole delicately sprinkled throughout the site.

Here is my spiel from the Intro to the new website:

"Why so many timelines, you ask? Well, to put it simply, Batman has a long and storied history that dates back to 1939. This rich history, aside from a few niche areas of the Internet, has not really been successfully evaluated and analyzed from a narratological perspective of serial-continuity. To answer the query about "why so many timelines" in a more scrutable and scholarly way, DC has a habit of rebooting its characters about every twenty-five years. For Batman, the titular character debuts in 1939 and gets rebooted roughly somewhere from 1960 to 1964--about twenty-five years later. The second version of Batman--the Silver Age Batman of Earth-One--lasts until 1985/1986. That's close to twenty-five years later. And guess what? Another twenty-five years have passed since 1986. You guessed correctly if you said DC has rebooted Batman again. 2011 brought about the third major reboot (don't call it a relaunch) in the history of the DC Universe. Pretty interesting stuff, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The complexity and narratological structuring and re-structuring involved with serial fiction has always fascinated me. Batman, in particular, has always been of particular interest in regard to this fascination. I hope you enjoy this project as much as I have enjoyed working on it. And I hope that you can learn something from it, not only about Batman, but about narrative continuity as told by multiple artists and authors in a variegated serial-fictional world."

"Oh, and one final note: This site is meant to be entirely non-opinionated and nonobjective, and not some random fanboy list of my own personal favorite Batman stories. I'll be the first to admit that I geek out a bit harder (and usually write a bit more positively) about my faves and likewise, write a bit more negatively about things I don't like as much. That being said, this does not mean that I'm trying to alienate any fans or tell any of my readers what's good and what's bad. I'll leave that to the reviewers and the critics. This website is not a comic book review or critique site. This website is home to an intensive scholarly research project, through-in and throughout. There are a ton of stories I've included on my timelines that I despise and many more that I absolutely adore, which are absent since they are non-canon. I can't stress this enough: The Real Batman Chronology Project is meant to be uninfluenced, unbiased, and most importantly, a scientific research-based endeavor that examines the continuity of Batman via a narratological reading based solely upon the facts (admittedly as I see them) in the comic books themselves."

Thanks all, and keep reading!
--CC

From Blogspot to Dotcom

In case you were unaware. Please be sure to check out the new website that is up-and-running smoothly at http://www.therealbatmanchronologyproject.com/.

The Modern Age has been transferred over completely now. The Golden Age is under way (first eight years nearly completed). The Silver Age and New Age (New 52) are coming soon!

Thanks for everyone's continued support. And a special thanks to my followers and anyone who has lent a helping hand, word of advice, criticism, or compliment.

--CC