Customer Reviews

Batman: Lovers and Madmen

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I had not heard of this story before I bought it, instead catching a glimpse of it in the bookstore and deciding to give it a chance. I'm a large fan of Batman in general, and I'm always ready to give another adventure a try if it captures my interest.

Lovers and Madmen comes forward with another Joker origin, which as many people argue, is a problem in itself. Some of the Joker's best characteristics are due to his enigmatic past, but in my opinion, this is how you would do an almost untouchable subject justice.

Since I'm sure people want to read the story itself, I'll just point out a few parts of the tale that I thought made it warrant these five stars.

On one hand, the audience gets to watch Batman grow. He orders a hit on this man Jack, the future Joker. This seems so unthinkable, so non-Batman, that it almost jerks the reader out of the story. This is a younger Batman, a Batman who has not become his true self yet, who has not reached the potential and come to the values that make him Batman. He makes mistakes, and he loses his confidence when things don't go his the way he had planned. Once he meets Jack, a being who is outside of his comprehension and expectations, his confidence almost shatters. However, he comes closer to becoming our Batman. He makes the right decision in the end, just as he was meant to do. This Batman is human, still fresh on the job and becoming himself.

In this story, the Joker starts out not as a criminal, but someone just simply evil. He's tired of his mundane life lacking challenge, and he finds purpose in the Batman. This strangely realistic view just feels right. The reader can visualize the connection between the two, the fascination that took Jack and made the Joker. It just makes sense.

While the tale focuses, rightly, on Batman and the Joker, we get tidbits about future key players. There are glimpses of Dr. Crane and Harleen Quinzel, which just bring a little extra to the table. It may seem like a little thing, but it just adds more joy to the pages.

The art fits the story well. The lines are somewhat layered and sketched, not clean. It's not a style for everyone, but there are moments where you just get caught up in the beauty of it.

Personally, I adored Lovers and Madmen, and I could go on about why it's such a great read. I'm actually rather stunned with the downright terrible or just mediocre reviews it has collected. I urge you to go out and give this story a try. It's definitely deserving of at least a look.

The only word of caution I have is this. This story is different; it is something new, an addition to a universe that has been growing for years. In order to enjoy it, you need to be open to it and accept what it gives you before making a decision on its quality. This is not The Killing Joke, and from what I've seen, it is when people start comparing this to it that it becomes less than what it is. I loved The Killing Joke, I still do, but as long as people hold above every other Joker origin, stories like this take hits.

I loved "The Killing Joke." Let's just get that out of the way.

I had already heard many bad reviews about this title when I saw it on the shelf at Borders. My curiosity got the better of me, and I bought it. And I actually liked it. Maybe it's because my expectations were low. Maybe I have bad taste, although that seems unlikely. The aforementioned "The Killing Joke", "Batman: Year One", "The Long Halloween", etc. are all favorites of mine. Anyway, I liked "Lovers and Madmen." Here's why:

1. The origin of the Joker here is, to me, more "real." I loved "Batman Begins." I know I will love the upcoming sequel, "The Dark Knight." The reason these movies work so well is because, as the director himself stated, they are created in a "realistic fashion." As I read L & MM, I felt that same kind of "heightened reality". The Joker's origin felt more REAL. It really drew on the idea that Batman is responsible for the Joker's existence, far beyond the traditional "Oops...I accidentally dropped a failed comedian into acid."

2. The Batman is portrayed as a real man who makes mistakes and then has to reconcile them. Batman ordering a hit was a surprise to me. But I wasn't offended over it, mostly because of how this knee-jerk decision affected the Batman. And by the end of the story, when faced with the same choice, he makes the right decision. Over the course of the story, he GROWS into the Batman we all know. I loved it. Again, it's more REAL.

The only thing I didn't particularly care for in this story was the depiction of Gordon in his relationship to Batman. There is this resentment that Gordon seems to have for Batman... Anyway, this story is far from perfect, but it's actually not a bad read. As much as I loved "The Killing Joke," I really appreciated this new origin for the Joker. I actually prefer it.

"Batman: Lovers and Madmen" contains "Batman Confidential" #'s 7-12 and details THAT comic's version of the origin of Batman's arch-nemesis.

Let's get this out of the way first off: THIS IS NOT ALAN MOORE'S "BATMAN: THE KILLING JOKE"!!!

This story comes on the heals of the "BC" #'s 1-6 story "Batman: Rules of Engagement", that details Batman/Bruce Wayne's conflict with Lex Luthor over corporate sabotage to win a military contract for robotic battle suits/A.I. soldiers. These stories appear completely separate from each other and don't reference one another so these story-lines appear to be non-canonical. Batman is enjoying the success of his campaign against crime, but a wild card has appeared: an unknown killer targeting people seemingly at random with no apparent motive - two facts Batman is unable to comprehend, believing that all crime has rhyme and reason. As Bruce Wayne, he meets and falls for a museum curator and finds himself enjoying the pleasures of a normal life that he considers giving up the cape and cowl all together. Meanwhile, our mystery killer - here, named "Jack" - has come to be dissatisfied with what he does simply because it doesn't give him any thrill. He shares this with a young psych. student named Harleen Quinzel, who unknowingly convinces him to go back and try again to find what he's looking for. He takes her up on the suggestion and later a robbery he's a part of is busted by Batman. Enthralled by someone in a costume looking to stop him from killing, Jack becomes obsessed with the Dark Knight and plans to find a way to meet him again. He crashes a museum showcasing and mortally wounds Bruce's lover and gets away; but not before Batman slices up his face with a bladed Batarang. Realizing that he's not up to the task of dealing with crazies - or "freaks" - Batman (in a HIGHLY UNCHARACTERISTIC move) places a mob hit on Jack; let the sharks eat their own as it were. Jack is kidnapped and taken to a chemical plant to be tortured to death. Batman soon realizes the error of his judgment and runs off to save him, bringing him to justice the right way. After a fiasco transpires between the mobsters and Jack, he comes to be engulfed in noxious chemicals and washed out into a marsh: he arises with green hair, bleach-white skin, and red stained lips on his mutilated face, leaving him with the appearance of a permanent grin. Now freakish maniac, the JOKER begins a campaign of laugh-tastic terror throughout Gotham, designed to make the Dark Knight fall.

An interesting read, but again, it's not "The Killing Joke". The brief featuring of Harley Quinn and a guest appearance by the not-yet-Scarecrow Dr. Jonathan Crane was a nice touch, and the struggle to do what's right in the face of insurmountable odds is still good for those who enjoy the meeting of (as The Dark Knight put it): "...an unstoppable force..." and "...an immovable object...".

Here's the deal: the whole "red hood" thing is part of current DC canon because Alan Moore decided to use it in "The Killing Joke" as part of his Joker origin. Unfortunately even Moore makes mistakes and the idea of the Joker starting out as a failed comedian wearing a bucket on his head is just ridiculous. The idea first turned up in a golden age story and I have no idea why Moore chose to keep it, except perhaps for nostalgia. Lex Luthor's first origin story told us that he hated Superman because, when he was a boy scientist, Superboy accidentally made his hair fall out. This was the kind of thinking golden age writers gave us, because they were writing for children. Joker starting out wearing a bucket on his head ("red hood" may sound cool enough but actually it's a bucket, not a hood) is exactly as inane as that original Luthor origin, which, thankfully, is not part of modern DC canon because a writer of Moore's stature didn't decide to revive it.

Killing Joke had great, evocative art but there is hardly a story there and the Joker's origin as retold by Moore made him into a fool: a regular guy who gets dropped in a vat of chemicals and comes out as the deranged genuius we all know as the Joker. But that meant the chemicals are what created the Joker, and that dimnishes the character.

"Lovers and Madmen" restores then Joker to his rightful status as an unpredictable killing machine and criminal genius who not only is frightening as hell, but whose very existence changes Batman irrevocably. Also, and this is no mean feat--it finally gives us a plausible reason why Batman didn't just kill him at some point. Put "Killing Joke" out of your head (Moore himself has called it one of his weakest pieces of writing and said that he never realized DC would make it canon) no matter how pretty the art was. Buy "Lovers and Madmen". The art isn't pretty--it's brutal. As it should be.

Batman: Lovers and Madmen is not a bad graphic novel. In fact the writing is mostly entertaining, however it simply is not up to the standards of other Batman gns like Killing Joke or even collections like Batman RIP, No Man's Land etc...

The problem is routed in the fact that this book is written more like a Hollywood adaptation intended to show off that the author could potentially write mainstream movie scripts. The signs are when crucial Batman villains show up at improbably convenient times.

Green attempts to tell a Batman origin, a Joker origin, a Harley Quinn origin, a Scarecrow origin all in one short gn. He ties it all together with seemingly chance meetings that foreshadow already known events in the Batman universe.

That technique is a common hollywood style, which is really dumbing things down for mainstream audiences. How did the Joker get those scars? Who is the Scarecow and how did he start? What is the deal with Harley Quinn? Too many questions are answered in hurried shoehorned ways.

A chance meeting at a bar, during Batman's detective work etc... The circumstances play out like an episode of Lost. "Everything happens for a reason" you will often hear people say. Logic tells us this cliche is not true at all. Humans try to make sense of circumstances beyond their control by assuming there are reasons behind it.

Unfortunately this hurts the story because the introduction of these other Batman villains at such convenient times in the story is almost laughable. Batman's decisions are not Bruce Wayne like, nor Batman like.

Some argue that "well this is the early Batman trying to figure himself out". Again, we've already read that tale, Batman: Year One. It was better, more grounded and more interesting than this book.

If considered an "Elseworlds" type of story I would rate it much higher. Sadly the author's vanity comes through very strong in this book. He is almost making fun at the absurd idea of Batman and his butler building a super hero empire. Early on it becomes extreme self parody as Alfred is able to construct the most advanced computer ever crafted in a matter of days, with little to no help.

Clearly the author is punishing longtime Batman fans w/ his "fantastic realism" spin on these characters. If it were Gabriel Garcia Marquez's work it might be more acceptable. But it's not, and it isn't. D.C. comics made a mistake with this book and 99% of Batman fans will consider this non-cannon at best, and at worst, an insulting parody of the Batman universe.

The artwork is interesting, what you see on the cover is what you get. A "rough sketch" style base with bold lines and inks to match. Another non fan favorite that has thankfully not stuck around and had little influence on other Batman artists.

Many attempts have been made to retell the story of the Joker's first encounter with batman; a story which first appeared in Batman #1, way back in 1940. In 1993, long time Batman writer and editor Dennis O'Neil wrote a story called "Images", which appeared in Legends of the Dark Knight #50. The story worked well and stuck closely to the original, where the Joker informes the Police of his intention to murder various people, and inspite of police protection, succeeds in doing so. It's failure, though, lied with the artwork. Artist Brett Blevins produced some of the worst work of his career, but even had he done his best, his style just did not work with the story, or harken back to the Joker story against which all others are measure, Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's the Killing Joke.

Luckily, that issue was forgotten and replaced in 2005 with Ed Brubaker and Doug Mahnke's Batman: The Man Who Laughs. This version again told the same story of the Joker's murder spree and conforntation with Batman, but in 64 pages this time. Here the art is perfect; Mahnke draws the perfect Joker, as well as everything else. The only (very small) let down is in the usually excellent Mr Brubaker's script. In this story, the Joker is too much his present self. He is already the full blown Joker of today, with costumed henchmen and laughing gas. But thats a small criticism of an otherwise solid piece of work, which is well worth reading.

Less than two years later, DC Comics again revises the the story of the Joker's first encounter with Batman, with the dreary Lovers & Madmen, this time with a revised origin to boot. Sadly, neither art nor story work at all. After the third part of the 144 page story, things start to go very wrong. The Joker's established origin is completely scuttled and replaced with the story of a hit man bored with life and on the verge of suicide until he encounters Batman and decides to keep living and make life miserable for everyone.

With this revised version, there is no Red Hood, one of the best elements of the Joker's origin, or any of the depth which Alan Moore brought to the character. This Joker is a hollow, silly man looking for a laugh, or ultimate Joke, which is one of the more boring verisons of the Joker used by many a writer these days.

Writer Michael Green makes another huge mistep in his portrayal of Batman. Bruce Wayne abandons his detective skills in favor of the ultra high tech Bat computer which his Butler, Alfred, builds for him. Not only is there a lapse in logic in the fact that Alfred is not qualified to build such a device, but the computer is able to just tell Batman where to look for the Joker. saving him the trouble of even getting of his butt and searching. Also, when batman feels the task of capturing Jack, who would later become the Joker, is too tough, he simply calls some local gangsters to have his new nemesis murdered. Hmm?

The art direction is also a misstep. Although I do think Denys Cowan is a very capable artist, I don't understand why his off beat artwork was deemed appropriate for this project. With the upcoming movie featuring the Joker, and the public's interest peaked in all things Batman, wouldn't a more mainstream art style been more suited? Mr. Cowen has also produced much better work than this anyway (See Batman: Blind Justice from 1989). The problem here is substituting good artwork in favor of "gritty" artwork, which has ruined many a Batman story. Good artwork is always a better choice. Give this one a skip and read something else.

"Batman: Lovers & Madmen" collects issues 7-12 of the new "Batman Confidential" series and it is an instant classic! It explores the origin of the Joker and fleshes out the Joker far more than "The Dark Knight" film. Heath Ledger's Joker wasn't a character so much as a force for chaos and anarchy. Here, the Joker is a person. Now, there's an argument that the Joker is the one character that does not need an "origin story". I find myself agreeing with that point of view over the years (even when I read Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke"). But once you've read this book, you'll probably change your mind. The story is written by Michael Green (he wrote some episodes of the "Heroes" TV series) and drawn by veteran artist Denys Cowan.

Denys Cowan's art for "Lovers & Madmen" is what made the whole thing worked so well. Countless other online idiots with blogs are complaining about Cowan's rough-edgedness and messy-looking lines. Same idiots also complained about Klaus Janson's art in "Batman: Death And The Maidens". They never grew up with Janson or Cowan. They grew up with the digitally-polished stuff by Greg Land (at Nu-Marvel). Cowan is a storyteller whose subtle lines are able to show the growth and maturity in the young Batman still learning his ropes to the increasing insanity in "Jack" (Joker) from one panel to the next. As for the writing by Michael Golden, well, if DC is reading this - please put this guy on the ongoing Batman book and throw out Grant Morrison! In today's decompressed storytelling style, Golden's scripts are unbelievably dense. Took me far longer than usual to read the 144-pages. Every line had something to say. Every internal monologue. Every line of dialogue. Every caption box. Golden KNOWS how to write. If you've enjoyed the tightness of "Heroes", you'll love his work here. He even threw in tiny nuggets like showing the first meeting between Jack and Harleen Quinzel (we know how these two will become lovers one day as Joker and Harley Quinn). Jack even paid for Quinzel's tuition fees in medical school! So in other words, the Joker "created" both Dr Quinzel the psychiatrist AND Harley Quinn, the insane sidekick.

As for the Batman, we see him falling in love with a girl from the art gallery. The story begins at the end of his first year as Batman. Teaming up with Gordon, they literally cleaned up much of the crime in Gotham City and he was kinda letting his guard down a little (so much that he allows himself to fall in love with a girl) because he thinks that he's at last understood the criminal-mind, and hence, is able to stop any potential criminal. Everything is logical. Everything is in the criminology and detection handbooks. Then he meets someone who short-circuits everything he thought he knew about crime. He meets someone who is criminally-insane and he couldn't understand that. We see him consulting a young Dr Jonathan Crane (who'll one day become the Scarecrow) and Dr Crane telling him that the Joker is INSANE. Batman was shocked. He was so busy trying to figure out the wires in the Joker's mind in order to prevent his next crime. He was busy looking for a pattern that he missed the most obvious thing that everyone else can see. There is no pattern because the Joker is INSANE. There are no wires to connect because all the wires in the Joker's head have been disconnected long ago! When Joker nearly killed the girl he loves, Batman too went insane. Some readers have complained about this particular plotline but it really makes a lot of sense. Batman realizes that the Joker's unpredictability is what is really scary to him. So he too decides to do the unpredictable - he teams up with Gotham's underworld and gets them to hunt down the Joker. Now, if only Christian Bale's Batman was half as brilliant as this - then we probably won't see him being manipulated by the Joker at every turn! [As a bonus, we also get the origin of the Bat-Computer devised by Alfred and initially named the "Dupin" - after C. Auguste Dupin from Edgar Allan Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue", Bruce's favourite book.]

As for the Joker, we see a man who was an expert at opening safes, crippling bank alarms, etc. but hating the "orderliness" of his work (his "gift"). He much prefers the chaos of a ringing bank alarm bringing in the police and a chaotic gunfight. When he finally meets Batman, he saw simply a man who was really crazier than himself! An idiot barking out commands and threats to criminals while dressed up in a ridiculous costume. When Jack finally snaps, we see how his insane mind works. He sees a bunny in the moon and at that point he "knows" that he's insane already. Then he goes on to call Batman "bunny" (I laugh every time I read that). In a way, that was even scarier and funnier than Heath Ledger's "You complete me" line! Golden brought out all the psychosexual tension between the Batman and the Joker (previously hinted at in Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" and Morrison's "Arkham Asylum") more than anyone else. When the two caught each other in a death grip and stabbed each other with knives, Denys Cowan made it look more like an embrace than a fight. The stabbing too was very sexual and the Joker was laughing all the way at the Batman who just can't resist him!

In the end, we see Bruce Wayne breaking up with his girlfriend and devoting his life to hunt down the Joker every time he threatens Gotham. See the parallelism? Joker stabs the girl that Batman loved. Batman later abandons the girl and turns all his attentions to the Joker. That was precisely what the Joker wanted - Batman's undivided attention (affection?). The subtlety of the work, the character interplay, the art, the humour, the brokenhearted girl, etc. All these elements add up to make "Lovers & Madmen" to be among the best Batman stories ever written. Who are the "Lovers" and "Madmen" in the title? It's obvious that the title was pointing to Batman and Joker being "Lovers" and fellow "Madmen".

In Batman Confidential 7-12, the Joker was already a schizophrenic prior ro his chemical bath. All the chemicals did was change his colors, but he got a little brain damaged from holding his breath while contemplating whether he should just let himself drown or escape. Also in Batman Confidential, we learn how the Joker got his smile. This version is backed-up by Batman RIP when the Joker has to get the sides of his mouth re-stitched. We also delve into the Joker's true reason for causing havok in gotham.

Okey, what I really like most about Batman Confidential was that it did away with the campiness & the plotholes. The Red Hood was so cheesy & questionable that the author threw it out the window, having a wife made him too humane, so he was made a nomadic bachelor with a questionable line of work, the nerve-ending issue had to go because the Joker was capable of frowning, so they had Batman slit his mouth with a batterang to make it wider.

While I was a bit taken aback by the Aeon Flux style art at first, this has become one of the most cherished pieces of my Joker collection.

If I was to pick one Batman novel that this hugely contradicted, it would be the easily forgotten Batman: Secrets, in the way that Batman Confidential & Gotham Knights tent to contradict eachother.

I've noticed several of the reviewers here have focused their review on this graphic novel in terms of it being a Joker origin story. I disagree with that overly simplified premise. This is not just about the origin of Joker. It has a lot to say about the early days of Batman too. You get to see how Batman progressed in that first period of his existence. You see how he decided on what weapons, vehicles, etc. worked best. You watch him grow over the course of the book as not just Batman, but as Bruce Wayne. You see him make mistakes and make choices out of anger and frustration that he later regrets. You get to see his relationship with Alfred and Jim Gordon. And you see him let down his guard and fall in love. I view this as a Batman/Joker story, not just a Joker story. If you want a story truly centered around the Joker, read Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo's "Joker". It is a stand-alone graphic novel that is not set in any Batman continuity, and it is not an origin story; but it is the most realistic, brutal, viscious story about the man that you will ever read. It's brilliant. But that's a review for another time.

I'm not sure if this book is canon or not, as I have not really kept up with the Batman universe. There are some differences to the Joker's origin in this book when compared to others I've read. For instance: this Joker is not a failed comedian and never wore a giant red dome on his head and a cape on his back, calling himself the Red Hood. No, this Joker comes across as more real than that. This Joker was an evil sociopath going by the name Jack way before he ever fell into a vat of chemicals that bleached his skin white, turned his hair green, and gave him bright red lips(which were scarred by Batman earlier on in the book). The chemical bath may have added to his mental instability and given him more purpose in some ways(afterwards, he seems to find what he calls his "bunny in the moon"). But it was always there, scratching at the surface. Before the chemicals, he becomes obsessed with Batman, who gives him a challenge and makes life a little more "fun" for him(up until his confrontation with Bats, he, void of any real emotions - especially of empathy and joy, feels like he's just sleepwalking through each day, and seemingly hoping someone will kill him and just put an end to his boring existence). After the incident, his "enlightenment" leads him to try to do the same for the citizens of Gotham(whom he feels are likewise in the same monotonous trance he used to be enveloped by) and he becomes even more obsessed with Batman, trying to push him to his breaking point. In terms of forcing Batman to make decisions on who to save when faced with the knowledge that some innocent people will die from those decisions, and trying to drive Batman to the point of allowing someone(in this case the Joker) to die for what Batman considers to be the greater good, I would think this is one of the books Christopher Nolan and David Goyer read when coming up with their script for "The Dark Knight". I loved those themes in that movie, and I love them in this graphic novel.

The artwork by Denys Cowan is so stylized and edgy, one can't help but become immersed in this beautifully dark world. His look is kind of a cross between indy and house styles. There is definitely expressionism there, but there's also realism. I loved the sketchy, moody appearance of the characters. You feel the art instead of just seeing it with your eyes. It works. I can't imagine another artist drawing this story. Cowan gives it just the right tone. And the inks by John Floyd allow Cowan's pencils to shine. Not to mention the gritty colors by I.L.L.'s Travis Lanham. It all comes together perfectly.

To put it succinctly, this graphic novel is a gem. If you love Batman and the Joker, this one's a no-brainer. Get it.

As someone who is not a big fan of the Killing Joke and its one bad day rationale for the creation of the Joker, I was open minded to this project when it was first announced. At the outset we're shown Batman in the early stages of his career, learning his trade via physical and mental preparation along with on the job training. On the opposite side, we are introduced to a career criminal named Jack, a guy who has lost his joie de vivre, his raison d'etre, and is currently a man with a death wish, drifting aimlessly and willingly towards that inevitable moment. One fateful evening the two cross paths, when just the sight of this mysterious and "ridiculous" looking vigilante rebirths and subsequently propells him on to a series of vicious crimes whose sole purpose is to frustrate and harass this masked man. At this point the story is clicking, with his new beginnings being both logical and intriguing. Unfortunately things take a dramatic downturn midway through it when Batman, who at this time is at such an inexplicable loss over what to do about this new and different type of criminal, does the unthinkable. He phones a gangster and sanctions a hit! What?! What in the world was writer Michael Green thinking? His portrayal of Batman as an incompetent, dumbfounded, self pitying semi-loser is truly painful to read. He doesn't appear to like the character much, or at the very least respect him. His writing in general is inconsistent and at times awkward. His forced and misguided attempts at witticisms are more absurd than acerbic. "I expected to run into monstrous men, not monsters". The second half of the book continues its' descent into decompressed silliness involving inanities such as bunnies on the moon. If this was supposed to illustrate the zaniness of the Joker, it failed miserably, and just further derailed what was an auspicious beginning. Add to this Denys Cowan's flat out horrendous artwork, and the end result is a regrettable mess, a squandered opportunity. All you fans of the Killing Joke, rest peacefully. This tale will be quickly forgotten, and deservedly so.