Arkham Asylum

[Golyadkin]

After wanting to read this book for many years, I finally did.

Overall feeling is let down and wanting more.

The author should have spent more time and detail on each criminal and their insane mindset. Go deep man... they had a great opportunity to be as dark and crazy as they wanted too. For example, one page on the Scarecrow!?

I thought the explanation to Gordon from Batman about Batman being afraid that Arkham might feel like home was necessary and a short cut. That fear could have easily been tied into the story with sub plots.

Great idea, great artwork and design, short on story. The ending was flat.

 

[Nepenthes]

the book's a turd

 

[BubbaGump]

That's the problem with focusing on stories that revolve around Arkham Asylum. The characters don't get enough screen time.

It happens in TAS, too, with the most vivid examples being The Strange Secret of Bruce Wayne and Trial. There were so many villains they kept distracting from each other.

 

[Motown Marvel]

arkham asylum is hands down one of the best and most intelligent batman stories ever.

the reason why they didn't go deep into the villains' mentality is because the book wasn't about the villains mentality, it was about batman's. and to some degree, it was about how batman's mentality isn't very different from the villains...but that was displayed effectively enough by showcasing a bit of the joker's and two-face's mentality. it would have been completely unnecessary exposition to go into all the other villains.

 

[Agentsands77]

ARKHAM ASYLUM is a triumph of visuals over story. Is the story truly amazing? No, but is pretty good. It's the artwork that elevates it to something truly magnificent.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i think the story is just as incredible as the art.

 

[Golyadkin]

arkham asylum is hands down one of the best and most intelligent batman stories ever.

the reason why they didn't go deep into the villains' mentality is because the book wasn't about the villains mentality, it was about batman's. and to some degree, it was about how batman's mentality isn't very different from the villains...but that was displayed effectively enough by showcasing a bit of the joker's and two-face's mentality. it would have been completely unnecessary exposition to go into all the other villains.

Its about the house, and what the house does to individuals. For example the therapist killing an inmate. I like the idea of the story, I love the artwork. I just think that the authors short changed the readers with limited storyline. The house could have been used as a gateway into the mindsets of the criminals as Batmans.

Maybe I just had some huge expectations. I wanted to read the story ever since it came out.. when I was a little youngster and now that I finally read it, I was let down.

Anyway watch out for Doug. He will bite your ass.

 

[Comic Book Boy]

After wanting to read this book for many years, I finally did.

Overall feeling is let down and wanting more.

The author should have spent more time and detail on each criminal and their insane mindset. Go deep man... they had a great opportunity to be as dark and crazy as they wanted too.

I thought the explanation to Gordon from Batman about Batman being afraid that Arkham might feel like home was necessary and a short cut. That fear could have easily been tied into the story with sub plots.

Great idea, great artwork and design, short on story. The ending was flat.

I agree. Story needed to be more compelling. It was just average.

 

[Acid Snowman]

I thought the story was pretty good actually, and would've enjoyed immensely if it weren't for it being so damn pretentious.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Why is Arkham the ONLY nut house in the DC universe?? Even Ray Palmer's ex was taken there after she killed Sue Dibney.

 

[Eagle_23]

I'm in the middle of reading it now and while I love the art and story as a whole....I hate the way the Joker is portrayed (you know what I mean) and as well how he's drawn.

 

[Mladen]

its probably one of the weakest Batman stories with some of the finest art. Its pretty obvious when Morrison is just pretending to be saying something symbolic and when he's just throwing in cool junk he read in a psych 101 text book. The book is supposed to be a psychological exploration, but Morrison's grasp of psychology is weak at best so he just falls back on generic Jungian symbolism in the hopes that it'll lend his story some weight. it doesn't.
With writers who do symbolism and deep-thematic content WELL (Gaiman, Moore), they have a sound knowledge base to back it up and the story is strong enough to stand on its own without having to decipher its deeper meaning. Morrison can't seem to do this with AA, though he's managed it a lot of his other work.
The artwork is nice (mostly, some pages are indecipherable, but thats more because of Morrison's writing), but the writing is just a mess.
He attempts to reach for something greater, a probing analysis of Batman's psyche etc, but fails to set up some basic bridges in understanding the story's thematic content. Characters appear and disappear and rely on the reader's familiarity with the batman canon to make any sense of them. Some parts really shine but overall they lack development. Two-face's role should have been a major one but was not fully recognised, and the Hatter's monologue, which is really the most literal key to understanding the entire book, dissapears in the swamp of the other villain cameos and you're most likely to not realise its importance in directing your attention at HOW to read the narrative. The whole story really needed to be longer, and Morrison needed to be more concise with what he was trying to say.
I can't recommend this book except as a fine art-book.

 

[BubbaGump]

its probably one of the weakest Batman stories with some of the finest art. Its pretty obvious when Morrison is just pretending to be saying something symbolic and when he's just throwing in cool junk he read in a psych 101 text book. The book is supposed to be a psychological exploration, but Morrison's grasp of psychology is weak at best so he just falls back on generic Jungian symbolism in the hopes that it'll lend his story some weight. it doesn't.
With writers who do symbolism and deep-thematic content WELL (Gaiman, Moore), they have a sound knowledge base to back it up and the story is strong enough to stand on its own without having to decipher its deeper meaning. Morrison can't seem to do this with AA, though he's managed it a lot of his other work.
The artwork is nice (mostly, some pages are indecipherable, but thats more because of Morrison's writing), but the writing is just a mess.
He attempts to reach for something greater, a probing analysis of Batman's psyche etc, but fails to set up some basic bridges in understanding the story's thematic content. Characters appear and disappear and rely on the reader's familiarity with the batman canon to make any sense of them. Some parts really shine but overall they lack development. Two-face's role should have been a major one but was not fully recognised, and the Hatter's monologue, which is really the most literal key to understanding the entire book, dissapears in the swamp of the other villain cameos and you're most likely to not realise its importance in directing your attention at HOW to read the narrative. The whole story really needed to be longer, and Morrison needed to be more concise with what he was trying to say.
I can't recommend this book except as a fine art-book.

I remember someone saying that AA is a parody of the growing seriousness of comics during the late 80s, which even Morrison admits. So yeah. Maybe the symbolism isn't supposed to be any deeper (if it serves any purpose at all). Moore is still truly the superior.

 

[Nepenthes]

its probably one of the weakest Batman stories with some of the finest art. Its pretty obvious when Morrison is just pretending to be saying something symbolic and when he's just throwing in cool junk he read in a psych 101 text book. The book is supposed to be a psychological exploration, but Morrison's grasp of psychology is weak at best so he just falls back on generic Jungian symbolism in the hopes that it'll lend his story some weight. it doesn't.
With writers who do symbolism and deep-thematic content WELL (Gaiman, Moore), they have a sound knowledge base to back it up and the story is strong enough to stand on its own without having to decipher its deeper meaning. Morrison can't seem to do this with AA, though he's managed it a lot of his other work.
The artwork is nice (mostly, some pages are indecipherable, but thats more because of Morrison's writing), but the writing is just a mess.
He attempts to reach for something greater, a probing analysis of Batman's psyche etc, but fails to set up some basic bridges in understanding the story's thematic content. Characters appear and disappear and rely on the reader's familiarity with the batman canon to make any sense of them. Some parts really shine but overall they lack development. Two-face's role should have been a major one but was not fully recognised, and the Hatter's monologue, which is really the most literal key to understanding the entire book,dissapears in the swamp of the other villain cameos and you're most likely to not realise its importance in directing your attention at HOW to read the narrative. The whole story really needed to be longer, and Morrison needed to be more concise with what he was trying to say.
I can't recommend this book except as a fine art-book.

yeah you've described alot of the problems with AA quite well.

The art itself is also fairly overrated. Points for creating an effective atmosphere for the story, too bad the sequentials are just horrible. I literally had to rely on Morrison's script (included in my edition) to feel confident I knew what was happening on those pages. I dunno the directions in the script seemed pretty clear, I wouldn't say it's because of bad writing the art doesn't make sense. .

 

[Eagle_23]

Yep, I had to read the script as well, just so I could put everything together and make sense of it. It's not a bad comic....but definetly over-rated. Had the potential to be amazing but just became to convoluted.

 

[Mladen]

yeah you've described alot of the problems with AA quite well.

The art itself is also fairly overrated. Points for creating an effective atmosphere for the story, too bad the sequentials are just horrible. I literally had to rely on Morrison's script (included in my edition) to feel confident I knew what was happening on those pages. I dunno the directions in the script seemed pretty clear, I wouldn't say it's because of bad writing the art doesn't make sense. .

Actually you're 100% right there. the 20th anniversary edition had a script which I had to keep going back to to make some sense of the story. You're definately right about McKean's sequentials sucking. Its an ultimate sucking team-up.

I remember someone saying that AA is a parody of the growing seriousness of comics during the late 80s, which even Morrison admits. So yeah. Maybe the symbolism isn't supposed to be any deeper (if it serves any purpose at all). Moore is still truly the superior..

I don't believe him. Morrison has done great parody before, so I know he's capable of it. I think he just let this one get away from him and is trying to cover his ass.. am I being too cynical?
Moore has ripped into this book in interviews numerous times (i cant find the link or if it was in a book or what... hmm... either way, he said it was all symbolism with no content).

Actually I just realised, did anybody else notice that when Bats leaves the asylum at the end, he leaves it still in the control of the inmates??? what???

 

[CaptainClown]

Would you guys say its buy worthy?

 

[Two-Face]

I don't like the art, it is pretty good read. If you are Bat-fan you will buy it anyway.

 

[CaptainClown]

Oh I know I will buy it, it just depends on the priority level =)

 

[Motown Marvel]

i cant believe some of the things im hearing here....seriously...

 

[Two-Face]

Like what?

 

[Superman4ever]

arkham asylum is hands down one of the best and most intelligent batman stories ever.

the reason why they didn't go deep into the villains' mentality is because the book wasn't about the villains mentality, it was about batman's. and to some degree, it was about how batman's mentality isn't very different from the villains...but that was displayed effectively enough by showcasing a bit of the joker's and two-face's mentality. it would have been completely unnecessary exposition to go into all the other villains.

 

[Nepenthes]

arkham asylum is hands down one of the best and most intelligent batman stories ever.

the reason why they didn't go deep into the villains' mentality is because the book wasn't about the villains mentality, it was about batman's. and to some degree, it was about how batman's mentality isn't very different from the villains...but that was displayed effectively enough by showcasing a bit of the joker's and two-face's mentality. it would have been completely unnecessary exposition to go into all the other villains.

^ yeah we get all that - and true this aspect is the most defining strength of the book, but it doesn't stop much of AA from being a pretentious and misconceived wank anyway. I have GREAT admiration for Grant Morrison, he's easily one of my top 3 writers but I have no problem calling his bullshiit when i see it.

 

[The Empire Ape]

This book is just horrible.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I like the art, and thought the writing was good, didn't like the story much.