Review: Detective Comics #874
February's Detective Comics is the issue in which Scott Snyder tries to wrap up the Jim Gordon second feature that had been brewing in this title until DC made the switch to shorter issues for a dollar less. I am still very much in support of that marketing decision and for all my dithering of a few months ago I find that I am just fine with a few less pages in return for more comics overall.
So what about this issue? That's kind of the downside of the new marketing scheme: I have absolutely no idea what was going on in that Jim Gordon B-side four months ago and so, as I was reading it, I thought this was the start of a story, not its continuation or its conclusion.
Read on for a review in which I talk myself out of my own opinion!
Here's a reaction that will reveal immediately how poorly I am educated in the comic book canon of superheroes: Jim Gordon has a psycho kid? This is, I confess, news to me. I vaguely remember a scene of Barbara Gordon telling her father that she's convinced that her brother is a killer but honestly I have no idea beyond that what the context for this scene might have been. Did that put a damper on my enjoyment? Absolutely. Still, the scene between Jim Gordon and his son is a tense, teasing piece of writing, relying entirely on dialogue and I love that kind of scene. In a previous century I was a performance major taking a bunch of Rhetorical Studies classes along the way and I love - absolutely love - scenes that are nothing but two characters trying to persuade one another of something. That kind of scene has tremendous potential for meaty, character-driven revelation and resolution.
We definitely get some of that satisfying character study action in this issue, no question there, and it's shocking to see shaken a character as firmly grounded as Jim Gordon - defined by an earthbound, unwavering confidence in his choices and his own moral sense, a cop so dedicated to order that only he can confidently interact with the degree of chaos introduced by vigilantism in the same way they say only Nixon had the right-wing street cred to be able to go to China. It's not often we're presented with a Jim Gordon who's unsure he's reached the right conclusions. That's one to remember.
That said, I still came away feeling a little enh about this issue. I have pretty conflicted feelings about having Jim Gordon's story include that he has a psychotic, possibly murderous son. On the one hand it's entirely appropriate that Gotham be a place where no one is immune to the criminal chaos around every corner. The whole reason Gotham City exists is as a place to tell stories about people whose personal histories are full of tragedy and who overcome that through what they see as their calling, and there's no reason Jim Gordon should be immune from that. In fact, as probably the third or fourth most recognizable icon of the story it's appropriate that his own life reflect that larger narrative theme of working to redeem the potential squandered by others.
On the other hand, the story of Gotham is just that: a story of redemption. Gotham City isn't the setting of, I dunno, Black Dog Games' old H.O.L. RPG; it isn't Transmetropolitan or even Fell. Gotham must get better, in the long view, or in a sense Batman's work is wasted, and the people who do the work of improving it in whatever way they can have to feel like their work is worthwhile. If every maniac in Arkham is simply replaced, was it worth it? If it isn't enough for Jim Gordon's family to be injured by the heroics of one of its members, what is? Isn't it a little too much for it also to be injured by the villainy of another of its members?
The latter view is the one I wound up with when I first closed the book. I felt like, really, putting Jim Gordon through the emotional meat grinder of having a psycho kid was just one albatross too many and that impression stuck with me right up until the moment that I started writing this review. However, I felt it only fair to try to consider the question from all angles and now, on reading them, I find the former view more compelling. There's no reason that Jim Gordon's story shouldn't be just as tragic as that of anyone else. There's no reason that the Commissioner of Police should be immune. The child who rebels against the example made for them is as old as parenting, surely, and in a way having one of his offspring become a criminal nicely mirrors that Barbara would become a vigilante and, ultimately, a kind of mastermind of other vigilantes. Do I just want to protect Commissioner Gordon because I have a sentimental attachment to him?
I think I just talked myself out of my own opinion. Well, there you go.
To be honest, I knew there was no way that the water coming out from under the door would be the result of some horrible crime. That, I think, would have been too much for the story to bear. As it is, it left one of the most important characters in Gotham's mythos questioning himself and his assumptions, and it kept me off-balance as the reader. Nicely done.
As to having a pseudo-second-feature for Batman? It's nice to see Red Robin show up, I guess, and I love Dick Grayson as Batman so I'll take pretty much any storyline involving him. I liked the mirroring of having water be the source of anxiety, too. All told, I started writing this review full of criticism about the issue and I finished it... really liking it.
Damn.
Klarion
Posted to Review on 8 March 2011
· Comments (0)
Other stuff like this: Batman, Detective Comics, Jim Gordon, Scott Snyder
Post a comment