The next guy who tells me that superheroes are a modern myth, I’m
going to sock him in the face. As far as I can tell, gods and other
deities don’t have trademarks that are jealously guarded by lawyers for
entertainment corporations. It’s important to note the modern myth
factor, though, because it partially explains these two books: Editors
at DC Comics assigned the most popular British authors of their
respective times (the Superman volume by Alan Moore was originally
published in the mid-1980s; the Batman story by Neil Gaiman was
published earlier this year) to write the final stories—the
all-important “the end”—for their most popular superheroes.
Introductions to previous editions of Tomorrow stated that this was an
important moment for Superman, because Norse gods have their Ragnarok
and the Christian god has the Book of Revelation, so of course Superman
would need to have an ending. This is, of course, self-important
bullshit.
That said, I love a good superhero story, and these new releases
from DC Comics are interesting examples of the genre. Moore’s final
chapter for Superman is the better of the two—all the bad guys
finally team up to rip the world’s greatest superhero to shreds, and
Superman, who is always so busy passing moral judgment on the world,
finally has to decide whether he’s doing the right thing. But Gaiman
turns in his best comic-book work in a very long time with his Batman
story, a supernatural love letter to the way Batman can shift and
become grimmer or lighter depending on the era, with an homage to
Goodnight Moon thrown in for good measure.
Neither one of these volumes is for first-time comics readers or
people who only know Superman and Batman from the movies or cartoons.
They’re dense explorations of decades of comics, a kind of dorky fan
letter from authors who were themselves once rabid fans. Both books are
way too thin—the title stories are around 50 pages long each. And
both books feature backup stories written by their respective
headlining author, but except for one exceptional, crazy Gaiman Batman
story that plays a great riff on an old Warner Brothers cartoon, they
can’t make the books feel any fuller or more important than regular old
superhero stories told well. It’s not a religious experience or
anything. 
Let’s see: each of the books you reviewed has two authors, a script writer and an illustrator; you mentioned the wordsmiths but ignored the visual artists. The visual component of comix/graphic novels is just as important as the script. Since you ignored the work of Andy Kubert & Curt Swan your review is incomplete. Sort of like reviewing a film and mentioning only its screenplay. So how about a few words about the art?
Howdy Freudian Shrimp:
That’s a great point, and something I wrestle with as I review comics. In this case, the writers are pitched as the major selling point for the books. They are intended as collections of comics by Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman, and the artists get tossed into the back seat.
Other artists illustrate the backup features, and so I couldn’t review each of the artists individually in the space that I had to review the book. Swan and Gibbons are both consistently exceptional artists. I really liked Simon Bisley’s artwork in the Gaiman Batman story I mentioned—it was wacky enough to sell the idea of the story completely.
And to your example, I think I have reviewed a screenplay before without nary a mention of the movie. Sometimes different parts of a production stand out. And in the case of these two books, each of these stories were crafted by the author to play up their respective artists’ strengths, which makes them, really, writers’ books. Much moreso than normal comics.
So, Paul, not a big fan of Samuel Jackson’s tirades in ‘Unbreakable’ then? =)
Neil Gaiman has an interest in promoting the idea of comics as modern mythology (*ducks*) though: he can sell more copies of American Gods that way, no?
It would be more accurate methinks to proclaim that superheroes™ are the modern post-theism take on Polytheism.
Whereas all stories are potential modern myth.
Didn’t Frank Miller nail the genre of Batman/Superman endings already in DK(1)? And specifically, Supes having to come to terms with morality? I’m curious which story came first…
I cannot agree that Gibbons is exceptional. Jaime Hernandez, the Oeming/Bendis team, and Wendy Pini rate highly as craftspeople to my tastes, whereas Gibbons is adequate and perhaps very adept at reading directions (Moore carries him, IMHO).
[ ™= let’s not forget, Marvel and DC literally own the term ‘superhero’. *sad* ]