![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
about_facesToday's batch is coming much later because apparently I had a lot to say about several characters here. I've been going through waves of feeling totally burned out interspersed with MUST TALK ABOUT MY OPINIONS ON THIS CHARACTER'S ENTIRE HISTORY and then crashing again. Thankfully, tomorrow's group is almost entirely made up of some serious Z-listers, so maybe I won't have much to say. For today, though, you may wanna grab a snack. It's a big one.
Ignore the awful, awful costume, and read the first paragraph of that guy's origin. I've never read the Quakemaster's story, so I don't know if that offered any insights as to whether he was to blame for the crappy structural integrity of the buildings. I prefer to think that the was innocent, and that his reputation was destroyed by people who were looking for a someone to blame for an act of god. But even if that wasn't the case, even if he was a lazy/incompetent architect who was just looking for revenge, that twist is like what would happen if O. Henry wrote superhero comics. If I were a meaner person, I'd do my best Nelson Muntz and go, "Ha-ha, you destroyed your own legacy!" But that would be cruel.
While I accept and generally agree that Ra's is one of the Great Batman Foes, I'm not sure how he's earned such a status. It's generally agreed that he's second only to the Joker, although there are some who think that he surpasses the Joker, a mentality which was held as far back as Ra's earliest appearances.
Part of it, I imagine, is that Ra's was a far more global threat. Even before the environmentalism aspect was introduced, he was a Fu Manchu style crime lord who gave Batman a James Bond flair, complete with mountain layers, beautiful women, exotic locales, and skiing. By all accounts, Ra's should be a Justice League villain, and yet he's firmly entrenched as being opposed to Batman. One theory I've read is that Ra's represents an evil father figure to Bruce. Thus I'm lead to suppose that, with Talia was a love interest, giving into Ra's goals for Bruce means giving into the temptation of giving up his mission to have a family... albeit a family with genocidal goals. So really, it's not much of a temptation at all, no matter how much Bruce loves (or even just likes) Talia. So I don't quite get why it's enduring as a plot element.
My biggest problem with Ra's is that he suffers from the same problem that Poison Ivy (another ecoterrorist, sometimes) has, which is a lack of motivation. Not even the greatest Ra's story--Denny O'Neil's masterful Birth of the Demon--managed to address why Ra's wants to save the planet, no matter how many human beings have to die. The natural assumption is that he's witnessed man's destruction of the environment first-hand for generations, but why does he care so much? Did he ever have hope that humanity might change, and was that hope further crushed by increased insanity from using the Lazarus Pit? I've never seen a story address these questions. Instead, it just seems like Ra's is meant to be a mouthpiece for Denny O'Neil, who has outright said that he sympathizes more with Ra's than with Batman. But the fact that he has ideals and ambitions at all, even if they haven't been fleshed out, puts him ahead of many other villains. At his very best, he's a villain of codes, ethics, and philosophies, and when he's not written as a hypocritical bastard who will sacrifice his own daughter to achieve his goals, Ra's can be truly awesome in the best sense of that abused word.
As such, I can still more or less buy into the mystique that is Ra's al Ghul. There's something huge and dramatic about him at his best, something sweeping and operatic, like his stories should be shot on widescreen and projected on a huge old-timey movie screen in 70mm film. While I think many of the classic O'Neil/Adams stories have aged poorly, The Demon Lives Again (AKA, the Shirtless Battle story) is still stunning, and could only have been told with Ra's. Plus, whenever I read Ra's, I always hear David Warner's voice, which goes a long way to making me appreciate the unique, awe-inspiring villainy that he brings to Batman.
All that said, in my heart of hearts, he's nowhere near the other Gotham-based rogues. For me, the core of Batman and his rogues is all tied up in Gotham itself, which is probably why I found it so incredibly satisfying when Paul Dini had Batman drug Ra's into a stupor and throw Ra's into Arkham, leaving him with a cold, brutal, "Welcome to Gotham." It was almost too cruelly out-of-character for Batman, but Ra's had it coming, and I loved seeing him finally, for once, brought down to their level.
Apparently, the Ratcatcher debuted in April of 1988, just two months after the first appearance of the Rat King in the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comics. Probably just a coincidence, but what a weird one. Were rats in the news around 1987?
I only read the Ratcatcher's story recently after learning that a Wizard Magazine from the 90's named it one of the top ten greatest Batman stories of all time (of ALL TIME!). Specifically, it ranked #8, nestled between Batman: Black and White and The Long Halloween. In truth, the story wasn't brilliant or classic, but it was an above-average yarn for the classic team of Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle (along with Grant's original co-author John Wagner), chock full of dread and atmosphere with one of the more impressively cruel plans for long-term revenge that I've seen of any villain.
That said, the Ratcatcher's tale is kind of forgettable when all's said and done. Here's the thing: Otis' insistence that he was wrongfully imprisoned for that decade made me hope that it was true, since I was far more interested in the prospect of this guy getting screwed over by the system and taking revenge if he was originally innocent. However, the bio here makes clear what the story implied, that Otis actually WAS guilty of murder in the first place. Well, in that case, why the hell should anybody care? But alas, there I go again, thinking like someone who actually wants to give a damn about his villains as characters!
Incidentally, Ratcatcher--like Killer Moth--was casually killed off in Infinite Crisis, another one for the cannon fodder pile. Hell, maybe I should just dub these deaths as canon fodder, for lack of a better term.
For a time, the Reaper was poised to become one of the truly important figures in Batman's new history after the reboot of the Crisis. Right before that reboot, writer Mike W. Barr and artist Alan Davis created a run of Detective Comics that was and still is beloved, partially because of how very retro and old-fashioned it felt. It was a fitting way to say farewell before the strikingly gritty take by Frank Miller's Batman: Year One redefined Batman from that point onward. For the sequel, DC made the interesting decision to hire Barr and Davis, thus using a very retro-classic team to follow up on a gritty modern take.
And thus, that's how we got their new villain for Batman: Year Two: the Reaper, a murderous vigilante, another "Like Batman, But Evil" who cut a bloody swath through the Gotham underworld. Clearly, the character was meant to serve as a dark mirror for who Batman could become, especially since the tale dealt with Batman debating as to whether or not to kill his parents' killer, Joe Chill (and with Chill's own gun, no less!), but Barr ended up sabotaging his entire story in the end. Just in the moment of truth, where Bruce has Chill in his sights, the hood's life literally in his hands, the choice is ripped away from Bruce when the Reaper randomly shows up to kill Chill instead. While Bruce ends the story deciding that the way of the gun isn't for him, it still robbed him of the story's crucial moral decision, effectively wasting the entire point of Batman: Year Two.
Outside of other stories by Barr himself, the Reaper pretty much dropped out of all continuity, save for a couple appearances by the great Alan Brennert who pit the Reaper against Alan Scott. In Brennert's story, it was the Reaper's brutal brand of justice which showed Green Lantern, Gotham's original protector, that the world he knew had moved on and that Gotham would require a different sort of hero. That's the only time I've ever liked the Reaper, and even then, that's more about what he meant to Alan and Gotham, but not as a character himself. He's just a crazier, more evil Punisher, and that's about it. How boring. How common.
That said, it's bizarre that the Reaper who recently came back as a zombie courtesy of Tony Daniel wasn't ol' Judson here, but was instead Dr. Gruener, the anti-Nazi avenger from the classic O'Neil/Adams comic, Night of the Reaper! If you're going to reanimate a Reaper to be your pawn, use the one who actually was the more adept killing machine, not the one-time killer who had a specific agenda! Man, that would have been a pretty appropriate use for Judson, but as it is, his character languishes in comics limbo.
David Goddamn Mazzucchelli. Oh, his art makes me so happy even when he's drawing Eddie in his tights. The pose and face are just so effective at conveying Eddie's flamboyant flair, and I love the close-up of his smug little smile. Too bad the bio is a perfect encapsulation as to why the Riddler was a C-list villain for years. I know puzzles and cheating are in his character from the very start, but y'know, there already IS a cheating, puzzle-based villain in the DCU, so wouldn't it better if the Riddler was more about... oh, I dunno, riddles? And also, why is he using an extending boxing glove? Isn't that more of a Joker-style weapon? SO MANY QUESTIONS! Well, mainly the two.
Well, the important thing is that, even at this period, the Riddler was considered a "crafty" and formidable threat. Post-Crisis, however, is another story:
I like to think that the artist gave the Riddler a ponytail just as an added "fuck you" to Eddie, who is apparently so disliked that even his own bio treats him like a joke. Hell, even his intelligence has been reduced to a grudging "some cunning." So yeah, why not give him a ponytail? It's not like anyone cares about the frickin' Riddler anyway! Sigh.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lego_joker and I have often discussed the disparaging attitude that creators and fans have about the Riddler and where it all went wrong. We've traced it back to the Neil Gaiman story, "When is a Door?" which dominates the end of this profile (from his arbitrary name change to Nashton to working in a junkyard as a living relic), followed by an appearance in Denny O'Neil's The Question which explicitly described him as a C-list loser, not so much the has-been of Gaiman's story and more like a never-was. Personally, I think the Riddler, much like the Penguin, was the sacrificial lamb for Batman fans' insecurity about anything associated with the Adam West show, and their desire to trash anything even vaguely campy so their comics could look more "serious."
In either case, this is a perfect encapsulation of the Riddler's lowest point, lower even than Bishie!Riddler, because that at least wasn't a prevailing view of the character. Thankfully, some measure of redemption for Eddie would be on the horizon, but the simple fact that the ending of Hush even happened proves that there was (and may still be) a "the Riddler is a loser" meme floating around out there.
Of the two, I greatly prefer Art Adams' Pre-Crisis image, which should go without saying. Not only do I love the Egon-like Professor Crane, but the Scarecrow is more effectively creepy just standing there as opposed to crouched in a "BOOGA BOGGA BOGGA!" pose. But then, I have a fondness for Scarecrow even at his silliest.
Man, I can't believe that I now have affection for the Scarecrow. I imagine that sounds strange, since he's a popular character. Hell, if a villain's popularity can be ranked in the order in which their profiles appeared in 1997's Batman Villains Secret Files and Origins (which we'll be seeing last), the Scarecrow was the third biggest villain just after the Joker and Bane.
Me, I never understood his appeal. Bear in mind, I grew up reading comics in the 90's, when the Scarecrow was largely depicted as a prancing, howling sadist who declared himself "THE MASTER OF FEARRRRRR" every five seconds and had a tendency to laugh like Richard Nixon from Futurama. Seriously, I want to do an entire compilation of all the times Scarecow went "HAROOO HRAAA!" Such a bizarre character choice.
Furthermore, the big Scarecrow take at the time was by Doug Moench, who repeatedly wrote stories of the Scarecrow out for revenge against the bullies who tormented him. Look, I was a bullied kid, I loathe bullies with a very special kind of raw, still-bleeding hatred, so Jonathan Crane getting revenge by becoming a sadistic bully himself is no way to make me like the character. To my mind, the Scarecrow was a creep and a petty, cruel sadist, and thus a character I could never enjoy other than as a punching bag. Which is to say, I saw him the way most people probably view Batman's villains in general.
That is, until I met Henchgirl and the Captain (AKAbitemetechie and captaintwinings), who are justly internet-famous for their CATverse series of stories which largely revolve around the Scarecrow. Their take on the Scarecrow was drawn from earlier canon, building upon aspects from his very first appearance that have been lost in the hands of writers like Grant and Moench. In a very real way, their Scarecrow is a more faithful take than the one by many published comic writers! This wasn't a howling, wacky sadist, but rather a prickly man of science, very much the kind of character for whom buying more books is a worthwhile motivation for crime.
They also call him "Squishy," but that's another matter. I like to think it's because of the squish-skull he used during Knightfall
Thanks to them, I now have an appreciation for the character at his best, which has also served to loosen me up when it comes to his more fun, wacky appearances by the likes of Grant and Moench. I now have affection for the hammy "MASTER OF FEEEEAR" stuff, even if they often had him laugh in a bizarre way. Seriously, whenever I read 90's Scarecrow appearances and see him go "HAROO! HRRAA!" all I hear is Richard Nixon from Futurama.
Ignore the awful, awful costume, and read the first paragraph of that guy's origin. I've never read the Quakemaster's story, so I don't know if that offered any insights as to whether he was to blame for the crappy structural integrity of the buildings. I prefer to think that the was innocent, and that his reputation was destroyed by people who were looking for a someone to blame for an act of god. But even if that wasn't the case, even if he was a lazy/incompetent architect who was just looking for revenge, that twist is like what would happen if O. Henry wrote superhero comics. If I were a meaner person, I'd do my best Nelson Muntz and go, "Ha-ha, you destroyed your own legacy!" But that would be cruel.
While I accept and generally agree that Ra's is one of the Great Batman Foes, I'm not sure how he's earned such a status. It's generally agreed that he's second only to the Joker, although there are some who think that he surpasses the Joker, a mentality which was held as far back as Ra's earliest appearances.
Part of it, I imagine, is that Ra's was a far more global threat. Even before the environmentalism aspect was introduced, he was a Fu Manchu style crime lord who gave Batman a James Bond flair, complete with mountain layers, beautiful women, exotic locales, and skiing. By all accounts, Ra's should be a Justice League villain, and yet he's firmly entrenched as being opposed to Batman. One theory I've read is that Ra's represents an evil father figure to Bruce. Thus I'm lead to suppose that, with Talia was a love interest, giving into Ra's goals for Bruce means giving into the temptation of giving up his mission to have a family... albeit a family with genocidal goals. So really, it's not much of a temptation at all, no matter how much Bruce loves (or even just likes) Talia. So I don't quite get why it's enduring as a plot element.
My biggest problem with Ra's is that he suffers from the same problem that Poison Ivy (another ecoterrorist, sometimes) has, which is a lack of motivation. Not even the greatest Ra's story--Denny O'Neil's masterful Birth of the Demon--managed to address why Ra's wants to save the planet, no matter how many human beings have to die. The natural assumption is that he's witnessed man's destruction of the environment first-hand for generations, but why does he care so much? Did he ever have hope that humanity might change, and was that hope further crushed by increased insanity from using the Lazarus Pit? I've never seen a story address these questions. Instead, it just seems like Ra's is meant to be a mouthpiece for Denny O'Neil, who has outright said that he sympathizes more with Ra's than with Batman. But the fact that he has ideals and ambitions at all, even if they haven't been fleshed out, puts him ahead of many other villains. At his very best, he's a villain of codes, ethics, and philosophies, and when he's not written as a hypocritical bastard who will sacrifice his own daughter to achieve his goals, Ra's can be truly awesome in the best sense of that abused word.
As such, I can still more or less buy into the mystique that is Ra's al Ghul. There's something huge and dramatic about him at his best, something sweeping and operatic, like his stories should be shot on widescreen and projected on a huge old-timey movie screen in 70mm film. While I think many of the classic O'Neil/Adams stories have aged poorly, The Demon Lives Again (AKA, the Shirtless Battle story) is still stunning, and could only have been told with Ra's. Plus, whenever I read Ra's, I always hear David Warner's voice, which goes a long way to making me appreciate the unique, awe-inspiring villainy that he brings to Batman.
All that said, in my heart of hearts, he's nowhere near the other Gotham-based rogues. For me, the core of Batman and his rogues is all tied up in Gotham itself, which is probably why I found it so incredibly satisfying when Paul Dini had Batman drug Ra's into a stupor and throw Ra's into Arkham, leaving him with a cold, brutal, "Welcome to Gotham." It was almost too cruelly out-of-character for Batman, but Ra's had it coming, and I loved seeing him finally, for once, brought down to their level.
Apparently, the Ratcatcher debuted in April of 1988, just two months after the first appearance of the Rat King in the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comics. Probably just a coincidence, but what a weird one. Were rats in the news around 1987?
I only read the Ratcatcher's story recently after learning that a Wizard Magazine from the 90's named it one of the top ten greatest Batman stories of all time (of ALL TIME!). Specifically, it ranked #8, nestled between Batman: Black and White and The Long Halloween. In truth, the story wasn't brilliant or classic, but it was an above-average yarn for the classic team of Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle (along with Grant's original co-author John Wagner), chock full of dread and atmosphere with one of the more impressively cruel plans for long-term revenge that I've seen of any villain.
That said, the Ratcatcher's tale is kind of forgettable when all's said and done. Here's the thing: Otis' insistence that he was wrongfully imprisoned for that decade made me hope that it was true, since I was far more interested in the prospect of this guy getting screwed over by the system and taking revenge if he was originally innocent. However, the bio here makes clear what the story implied, that Otis actually WAS guilty of murder in the first place. Well, in that case, why the hell should anybody care? But alas, there I go again, thinking like someone who actually wants to give a damn about his villains as characters!
Incidentally, Ratcatcher--like Killer Moth--was casually killed off in Infinite Crisis, another one for the cannon fodder pile. Hell, maybe I should just dub these deaths as canon fodder, for lack of a better term.
For a time, the Reaper was poised to become one of the truly important figures in Batman's new history after the reboot of the Crisis. Right before that reboot, writer Mike W. Barr and artist Alan Davis created a run of Detective Comics that was and still is beloved, partially because of how very retro and old-fashioned it felt. It was a fitting way to say farewell before the strikingly gritty take by Frank Miller's Batman: Year One redefined Batman from that point onward. For the sequel, DC made the interesting decision to hire Barr and Davis, thus using a very retro-classic team to follow up on a gritty modern take.
And thus, that's how we got their new villain for Batman: Year Two: the Reaper, a murderous vigilante, another "Like Batman, But Evil" who cut a bloody swath through the Gotham underworld. Clearly, the character was meant to serve as a dark mirror for who Batman could become, especially since the tale dealt with Batman debating as to whether or not to kill his parents' killer, Joe Chill (and with Chill's own gun, no less!), but Barr ended up sabotaging his entire story in the end. Just in the moment of truth, where Bruce has Chill in his sights, the hood's life literally in his hands, the choice is ripped away from Bruce when the Reaper randomly shows up to kill Chill instead. While Bruce ends the story deciding that the way of the gun isn't for him, it still robbed him of the story's crucial moral decision, effectively wasting the entire point of Batman: Year Two.
Outside of other stories by Barr himself, the Reaper pretty much dropped out of all continuity, save for a couple appearances by the great Alan Brennert who pit the Reaper against Alan Scott. In Brennert's story, it was the Reaper's brutal brand of justice which showed Green Lantern, Gotham's original protector, that the world he knew had moved on and that Gotham would require a different sort of hero. That's the only time I've ever liked the Reaper, and even then, that's more about what he meant to Alan and Gotham, but not as a character himself. He's just a crazier, more evil Punisher, and that's about it. How boring. How common.
That said, it's bizarre that the Reaper who recently came back as a zombie courtesy of Tony Daniel wasn't ol' Judson here, but was instead Dr. Gruener, the anti-Nazi avenger from the classic O'Neil/Adams comic, Night of the Reaper! If you're going to reanimate a Reaper to be your pawn, use the one who actually was the more adept killing machine, not the one-time killer who had a specific agenda! Man, that would have been a pretty appropriate use for Judson, but as it is, his character languishes in comics limbo.
David Goddamn Mazzucchelli. Oh, his art makes me so happy even when he's drawing Eddie in his tights. The pose and face are just so effective at conveying Eddie's flamboyant flair, and I love the close-up of his smug little smile. Too bad the bio is a perfect encapsulation as to why the Riddler was a C-list villain for years. I know puzzles and cheating are in his character from the very start, but y'know, there already IS a cheating, puzzle-based villain in the DCU, so wouldn't it better if the Riddler was more about... oh, I dunno, riddles? And also, why is he using an extending boxing glove? Isn't that more of a Joker-style weapon? SO MANY QUESTIONS! Well, mainly the two.
Well, the important thing is that, even at this period, the Riddler was considered a "crafty" and formidable threat. Post-Crisis, however, is another story:
I like to think that the artist gave the Riddler a ponytail just as an added "fuck you" to Eddie, who is apparently so disliked that even his own bio treats him like a joke. Hell, even his intelligence has been reduced to a grudging "some cunning." So yeah, why not give him a ponytail? It's not like anyone cares about the frickin' Riddler anyway! Sigh.
lego_joker and I have often discussed the disparaging attitude that creators and fans have about the Riddler and where it all went wrong. We've traced it back to the Neil Gaiman story, "When is a Door?" which dominates the end of this profile (from his arbitrary name change to Nashton to working in a junkyard as a living relic), followed by an appearance in Denny O'Neil's The Question which explicitly described him as a C-list loser, not so much the has-been of Gaiman's story and more like a never-was. Personally, I think the Riddler, much like the Penguin, was the sacrificial lamb for Batman fans' insecurity about anything associated with the Adam West show, and their desire to trash anything even vaguely campy so their comics could look more "serious."In either case, this is a perfect encapsulation of the Riddler's lowest point, lower even than Bishie!Riddler, because that at least wasn't a prevailing view of the character. Thankfully, some measure of redemption for Eddie would be on the horizon, but the simple fact that the ending of Hush even happened proves that there was (and may still be) a "the Riddler is a loser" meme floating around out there.
Of the two, I greatly prefer Art Adams' Pre-Crisis image, which should go without saying. Not only do I love the Egon-like Professor Crane, but the Scarecrow is more effectively creepy just standing there as opposed to crouched in a "BOOGA BOGGA BOGGA!" pose. But then, I have a fondness for Scarecrow even at his silliest.
Man, I can't believe that I now have affection for the Scarecrow. I imagine that sounds strange, since he's a popular character. Hell, if a villain's popularity can be ranked in the order in which their profiles appeared in 1997's Batman Villains Secret Files and Origins (which we'll be seeing last), the Scarecrow was the third biggest villain just after the Joker and Bane.
Me, I never understood his appeal. Bear in mind, I grew up reading comics in the 90's, when the Scarecrow was largely depicted as a prancing, howling sadist who declared himself "THE MASTER OF FEARRRRRR" every five seconds and had a tendency to laugh like Richard Nixon from Futurama. Seriously, I want to do an entire compilation of all the times Scarecow went "HAROOO HRAAA!" Such a bizarre character choice.
Furthermore, the big Scarecrow take at the time was by Doug Moench, who repeatedly wrote stories of the Scarecrow out for revenge against the bullies who tormented him. Look, I was a bullied kid, I loathe bullies with a very special kind of raw, still-bleeding hatred, so Jonathan Crane getting revenge by becoming a sadistic bully himself is no way to make me like the character. To my mind, the Scarecrow was a creep and a petty, cruel sadist, and thus a character I could never enjoy other than as a punching bag. Which is to say, I saw him the way most people probably view Batman's villains in general.
That is, until I met Henchgirl and the Captain (AKA
bitemetechie and captaintwinings), who are justly internet-famous for their CATverse series of stories which largely revolve around the Scarecrow. Their take on the Scarecrow was drawn from earlier canon, building upon aspects from his very first appearance that have been lost in the hands of writers like Grant and Moench. In a very real way, their Scarecrow is a more faithful take than the one by many published comic writers! This wasn't a howling, wacky sadist, but rather a prickly man of science, very much the kind of character for whom buying more books is a worthwhile motivation for crime. They also call him "Squishy," but that's another matter. I like to think it's because of the squish-skull he used during Knightfall
Thanks to them, I now have an appreciation for the character at his best, which has also served to loosen me up when it comes to his more fun, wacky appearances by the likes of Grant and Moench. I now have affection for the hammy "MASTER OF FEEEEAR" stuff, even if they often had him laugh in a bizarre way. Seriously, whenever I read 90's Scarecrow appearances and see him go "HAROO! HRRAA!" all I hear is Richard Nixon from Futurama.
