I just read it for the first time and was not a fan whatsoever.

I got what Morrison was trying to do, but it's so heavy handed and pretentious.

The art style didn't help matters, but I did appreciate it for being something different.

What really left a bad taste in my mouth were Morrison's comments on his script (which looked like a trainwreck) and the graphic novel in general. He talks down to the reader and glibly adds "explanations" for those he deems not bright enough to get it.

His comment to the executives original response to it (they found it sophomoric and pretentious) really rings of sour grapes and a lack of confidence in his own talent.

So what is it that people seem to love about this piece and Morrison in general. I haven't read much more of his work and after this, I'm not sure I care to give him any of my attention again.

We've been talking in the other thread about Morrison lately due to my displeasure with the Final Crisis storyline. Although some of his work has been really good, we came to an agreement that part of the issue with his composition is the lack of control or supervision that DC (and earlier this decade, Marvel) has had over him. Yes, he has been able to create multi-dimesions for unknown or lesser used character in both companies, but it seems that his ego trumps over when he tackle major characters. He wants his version of any given character, like Magneto, Wolverine or Batman to be the canonical one, forgetting that those guys have over 30 years of history. Apparently, he is one that believes that keeping things simple in terms of storylines and characters is for idiots or simpletons, not his "fanbase". Look around Youtube and there is a video of Morrison giving a lecture at an university and you see that this guy thinks he is above comic book fans, over people that care about their 30, 40, 50 year history. As long as there is no editor who says No! to many of his ideas, then stuff like Arkham Asylum and Final Crisis are going to continue to happen and the decline in the business is going to continue.

Well, I really like it, if for no other reason, than I'm a Batman nerd. It's one of the 10 Batman books I view as required reading, if not to get Batman, to get his world (at least how it works post-crisis). However, I get why people may not like it, and I will say that the use of the crazy fonts in the book definitely hurt it. Some of the Joker text is really hard to read.

One thing you have to understand about "Arkham Asylum" is its historical context.

It came out around '89/'90 when the first Burton Batman movie was released. Prior to Arkham Asylum's release, it was hyped up as being hotshot newcomer Grant Morrison's take on Batman vs his entire rogue's gallery with lush painted artwork by Dave McKean wrapped up in a spiffy hardcover volume. It was to be the beautiful baby that was conceived when Dark Knight Returns fucked the Killing Joke.

And what was actually delivered was this murky, philosophical, postmodern nightmare. Retailers couldn't sell it. Batgeeks were expecting something like "Hush" and got David Lynch on acid.

I can remember buying the hardcover for $5.00 from a retailer who was trying to get rid of a several dozen of them.

Taken without its historical baggage, Arkham Asylum is a decent enough book despite being somewhat overwrought and pretentious, though it's definitely not one of Morrison's best. Though I do agree that it appears that Morrison's comes off like he blames the audience for not being sophisticated enough to "get it." Which, I suppose, is true in that the books was pushed on a mainstream audience. This is the Vertigo Batman, not the Aparo/Breyfogle Batman.

It's funny you say that, because I don't think there is anything to "get". Believe me, I'm not an incredibly careful reader. Shit flies over my head all the time, but I read and enjoyed AA on my first go, and actually it was one of the first comics I read when I got back into comics in the early aughts. I'm going to read it again to see if my more experienced tastes will like it as much.

Wow, one of my 3 all-time favorite Batman stories & the art is utterly brilliant. What on earth makes it pretentious? I don't even know where that assumption could possibly be made in this story.

I'm with Sessa on this. Although I haven't read the book in a decade, I thought it was great when I read it.

Of course, a lot of McKean's stuff just looks so dated now.

Never read it. I admit I'm shallow enough to flip through unfamiliar books to see if I like the art, and this one has never appealed to me. Maybe someday.

The symbolism is very heavy handed, especially when it comes to the Killer Croc part and the self-stigmata with the glass shard. What really irked me was reading Morrison's comments on it; I suspected he was very full of himself, but as I stated previously, his explanations came close to calling the reader dense if they didn't pick up on subtle nuances.

I remember being quite impressed by it when I got it, and I think it holds up well. I like the concept of doing a comic as more of a series of Macabre paintings, and I thought it was an interesting look into the world of Batman's villains. Was it perfect? No. But I didn't find it heavy handed or anything.

Of course I'm a guy whose tastes in comics are very diverse, as I like stuff by Garth Ennis and also the (apparently) much maligned Jeph Loeb.

I have always been kind of on the fence about this one. I enjoyed it, but I don't count it among my favorite batman titles. I am a Sandman fan as well, so it isn't the McKean art that bothers me, the story itself just didn't grip me that much. I loved the video game though!!!

As for Grant Morrison, he deserves most of the criticism he gets. Batman: RIP and Final Crisis were both terrible, I have however enjoyed the Batman & Robin Rebirth storyline so far.

I'm not particularly a fan of Morrison's mainstream superhero work, and don't think his temperament works very well within the confines of Marvel or DC's greater universes. Also doesn't help when he's writing flagship titles, and there's no other writer working in comics who operates on the same wavelength he does.

Of Morrison's recent (post 2000) work, the only stuff I consider exceptional are We3 and All Star Superman. Animal Man, Doom Patrol, and The Invisibles are, for the most part, brilliant. (Though in its final year, The Invisibles seemed to get away from him. The final issues was aces, though.)

Y'know having 2 exceptional works, and then some good and bad stuff ain't too shabby. I'm thinking about other mainstream comic people I like, and I'm hard pressed to say most of them have something truly exceptional they've done in the last decade.

[QUOTE=Josh-da-man;9779010]All Star SupermanQUOTE]

Of thanks Josh, for reminding me of that title, I had forgotten about it but I did really enjoy that title as well. In fact, I am not a big Superman guy, and yet I consider it one of my favorite titles in recent memory. AK

Grant Morrisson's Batman: Gothic >>> Arkham Asylum. And they both came out within months of each other.

I'm a Morrison fan. He's done enough brilliant, classic comics to make his incomprehensible and/or just plain bad comics irrelevant. Although even his misfires are still interesting.

His Animal Man run (which I read and collected in floppies back in 1988-1990) is just as amazing as everyone says it is. If you haven't read it, you can't consider yourself a comics fan.