Some literature excels in developing characters; some excels
at developing locales or settings. The DC Universe is tremendously rich in
characters – its landscape is most meaningfully defined in terms of characters
– but relatively impoverished in well-developed places. A notable exception is
Arkham Asylum, home to many of Batman's villains when they're not on the loose.
It may surprise some fans to learn that Arkham was not introduced until 1974,
and was first given a detailed backstory not in a story but rather in an
encyclopedia article entry in 1985's Who's
Who in the DC Universe (a title that, again, reinforces the emphasis on
characters over places).
Denny O'Neil created Arkham and Len Wein gave it an origin,
but Grant Morrison's 1989 work Arkham
Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth made Arkham a place to remember. AA (as I'll abbreviate the name of the
graphic novel here, to distinguish it from the place) redefined more than just
one building on the outskirts of Gotham City. AA may be thought of as the last of several impactful graphic
novels of the Eighties, but also the first significant work in Morrison's long
history in writing Batman. But to a reader picking it up new, AA did not relate to a past or a future
so much as it was squarely part of a Batman renaissance in progress, the great
year of Batman 1989, when the Batman
film starring Michael Keaton ruled the box office and a new series, Legends of the Dark Knight, debuted in
the stores. Significant as it is for its place in this larger web of Batman
works, AA is complex enough when
considered alone, and many of its references, starting with the title, are owed
to mythology and literature outside of the superhero genre, although the many
references to Lewis Carroll, Parsifal, mythology, and religion perhaps operate
more as decoration than they contribute to the structure. The title itself, borrowing from a poem by Philip Larkin, compares Arkham Asylum to a church. AA's impact, however, may have gone beyond the world of Batman and
graphic novels to influence the zeitgeist
of the early Nineties.
AA tells two
stories; we know at the beginning that they are related in that they occur in
the same place, although decades apart. There are, moreover, many curious
parallels between the insane ravings written down by a man in the past and the
specific experiences of Batman on a night seven decades after Amadeus wrote in
his journal. It is only near the end when we learn that the past and present
stories are very tightly related, and wonder if they might be related in a
deeper way still. The main story, set in the present, shows Batman entering
Arkham in response to an inmate riot, and getting more than he bargained for. The
background plot, which runs from 1901 to 1929, and centered in 1921, is something
different than a superhero story, and can appeal to readers who prefer,
instead, mystery and horror. The Batman story itself also diverges markedly
from the pre-existing norms of the superhero genre, and is something else, more
psychological, and if it does not provide an actual account of human psychology,
that leaves AA in good company with
other "psychological" films and books.
The bare facts of the story, where another writer might
focus but Morrison did not, is that the present administrator at Arkham,
Charles Cavendish, goes mad and, informed by the journal of his predecessor, Amadeus
Arkham, who also went mad, releases the inmates as part of a plan to kill
Batman. Cavendish's guilt, however, is a secret until the book's final pages, the
solution of a mystery that is teased very lightly near the beginning (i.e., when
Jim Gordon announces that the Arkham inmates have taken over – "We don't
know how" – and when Joker says that Killer Croc, too, was freed from his
unique confinement).
But the reader begins the present-tense story confronted not
so much with a mystery as with a simple, compelling scenario: The inmates, led
by the Joker, have taken over Arkham; they want Batman to come to them, and they
have hostages they can torture and kill if he doesn't comply. Another writer
might imbue Batman with the ability not to choose, to storm Arkham like a
commando, freeing all the hostages, re-caging all the inmates and achieving
total victory. That would have been a conventional superhero story, but a much
less interesting one than the one AA
tells. Instead, Batman reluctantly surrenders to the inmates and submitting to
their games, before finding the opportunity to use his skills to evade several
of the most serious dangers in the Asylum. Eventually, Batman is confronted by
Cavendish, who sees Batman as the cause of all the madness that Arkham
confines, and therefore an evil that must be eliminated. Another Arkham doctor,
Ruth Adams, kills Cavendish, and Batman goes on a brief, ambiguous rampage
before he himself proposes the final game of the evening, for his life to be
decided by a single coin toss by Two Face. Dent tosses the coin and announces
that Batman is free to go, but we later learn that the result actually called
for Batman's death and that Dent announced the opposite choice of his own free
will.
Told concurrently with that present-tense plot, in narration
that switches from scene to scene, page to page, and sometimes juxtaposed
within a single panel, is the story of Amadeus Arkham, how his personal
studies, his personal tragedies, and his personal madness all aligned to make
him both the creator of Arkham Asylum and later an inmate. The story of Amadeus
Arkham is profoundly disturbing, completely beyond the bounds of superhero
comics as they existed only a few years earlier, but some ground had been
broken in this regard, by Alan Moore and others, so Morrison's story, which
would have been unthinkable in 1983, was merely shocking in 1989. The
conclusion of the past-tense plot was that Amadeus Arkham fell victim to
(perhaps hereditary) madness, and loses his mind after having already lost
everything else.
While Batman is confined to the trap that is the physical
Arkham Asylum, the reader should sense another trap in the past-tense plot,
which is that it has long since ended, and Batman is therefore powerless to do
what superheroes do and create a happy ending. From the outset, it is
impossible that AA could allow a
traditional superhero story's ending in the past-tense plot, and the reader
must sense early on that the genre is being broken and turned into something
new and full of horror.
There are no taboos holding back the horrors of the
past-tense plot. Early on, we learn of Amadeus' mother's madness in a
disgusting image that shows insects falling out of her mouth. The worst of it,
though, concerns "Mad Dog" Hawkins, who was a victim of abuse, and gives
the world plenty of abuse back, culminating in the murders and apparent rapes
of Amadeus' wife and daughter. In presenting Mad Dog Hawkins and his crimes,
Morrison tapped into a fascination with serial killers that was growing in
popular culture at the time. A search on Google Books reveals that the phrase
"serial killer" was almost unheard of in 1984, but grew rapidly in
occurrence over the next dozen years. Morrison's depiction of Mad Dog Hawkins
and his mutilation of victims and need to cut himself "just to feel
something" was ahead of the curve in depicting such characters and perhaps
played a significant role in the phenomenon, which surged in the mainstream
with the film The Silence of the Lambs
two years later. Morrison also gives nods to a much earlier forerunner, Alfred
Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho,
reproducing one frame of the movie in the art, and having Amadeus Arkham, like
Norman Bates, sit alone in his madness while wearing his mother's dress.
Hawkins eventually impacts the plot – and arguably, culture
as a whole – by escaping –, which Amadeus tragically chooses to ignore –
and slaughtering Amadeus Arkham's wife and daughter. Amadeus' journal narrates
it horrifically: "I see my wife first. My dear Constance. Her body is in
pieces. Harriet lies nearby, indescribably violated. Almost idly, I wonder
where her head is. And then I look at the doll's house. And the doll's house.
Looks. At. Me." AA shows
families and children as victims many times, including the fact that Mad Dog
Hawkins was sexually abused by his own father, and this carries over to
established DC characters via the sexual interest that the Mad Hatter shows in "little
blonde girls." A year later, Morrison's second major Batman story,
"Gothic," opens with a man learning that his wife and daughter were
being forced into making pornography. Amadeus Arkham turns the violence within
families back a generation as well, killing his mother as – in his mind – an
act of mercy, saving her from her fears and madness. If the medium's use of
shock and horror which increased suddenly in the Eighties is to be seen as
excessive, AA is one of the stories
where that excess was pioneered.
A narrative device that Morrison uses to heighten the impact
of the story's excesses is to use language that implies that a character's emotional
reaction to an event is muted when it should have been shock. Mad Dog cuts
himself "just to feel something." Amadeus looks for his daughter's
head "almost idly" and tells his mother, "Don't be afraid"
right before he kills her. Ruth Adams interrupts another of her own thoughts
with, "Oh, Christ. I just killed
someone." The casual reactions are
jarring in contrast with the horrific events unfolding. Years later, Morrison
used the same device in JLA #17, when
Prometheus tells Kyle Rayner, "I should shoot you right now, purely out of
mercy. There. I just did." Elsewhere, in arguably the story's darkest comment, Two Face says that the Moon is a coin tossed by God, and because it landed scarred-side up, he created the world.
The association between families and violence is not, to say
the least, new to the Batman mythos, but is at the very core. Morrison takes
the origin that was established in Detective
Comics #33 and renders it in blood and guts and psychological shock, with
Batman breaking down when a word association game forces him to reveal to the
Joker how traumatized he was by his parents' murders. As Alan Moore had done in
the immediately preceding years, Morrison brought a new level of shock and
horror to DC's superhero lineup. Also like Moore, Morrison had Batman as the DC
flagship figure closest to the center of the spectacle – Batman as the
star of Morrison's work, and a guest of far greater repute than the star of
Moore's Swamp Thing. Batman is a natural
choice for this, as a figure of darkness as opposed to, say, Green Lantern or
The Flash. But Morrison went far further than either the traditional legends or
Moore's uses of Batman, by marking the hero as a fundamentally tragic figure,
not only in his origins or his milieu, but in his character. Early on, Batman
says, "I'm afraid that the Joker may be right about me [that Batman
belongs in the madhouse]. Sometimes I… question the rationality of my actions.
And I'm afraid that when I walk through those asylum gates… when I walk into
Arkham and the doors close behind me… it'll be just like coming home." The
notion that Batman is damaged psychologically is reinforced throughout the
story, perhaps most emphatically in the closing psychological sketch of Batman,
a one-page internal monologue which is placed in the middle of those for
Arkham's inmates, and whose final words read, "Mommy's dead. Daddy's dead.
Brucie's dead. I shall become a bat."
This vision of Batman as a fundamentally wounded figure is
very different from the Batman that Morrison wrote two decades later, a man who
is relentlessly strong in body and mind even in response to physical and
psychological attack while in captivity. In 2006-2010, Morrison portrayed a
Batman who could eventually escape from any trap, and could endlessly summon
greater and greater resources in response to absolutely any crisis. In 1989,
Morrison showed us a Batman who was, at least in principle, fragile, and who
not only could be broken, but was willing to tell Jim Gordon that he feared
that. And the horrible murder and abuse afflicting families in the story
included the Waynes. "Brucie's dead" is a line that could only come
from Bruce/Batman himself, and the use of a diminutive to describe himself is
just as jarring as the thesis that Bruce Wayne died in spirit on the night that
his parents died physically, but he was still, for a time, childlike enough to
call himself "Brucie" as he reflected upon his trauma.
While Morrison's vision of Batman changed considerably from AA to his run on Batman, the Morrisonian vision of the Joker is firm on one idea:
That the Joker's wide range in characterization over the years – from a
"bad" but funny clown to a terrifying psychotic murderer – should be
interpreted in a metatextual way as the changes taking place in the mind of an
insane – or "super sane" criminal. In AA, Ruth Adams gives us this vision of the Joker for the first time:
"…some days he's a mischievous clown, others a psychopathic killer." It
next appeared 17 years later in 52
#30, with Dick Grayson narrating, "The Joker gave up being a murderer for
a while and there was just this crazy, brilliant clown running around." This
is developed further in Morrison's prose issue, Batman #663, "The Clown at Midnight," with Batman
explaining to Harley Quinn, "He's changed again. You know how he changes
every few years. You wrote the book, Doctor Quinzel. He has no real
personality, remember, only a series of 'superpersonas.'" Then a flashback
in 2008's Batman #682 shows an
apprehended Joker with a twisted smile telling Batman, "…you look tired,
Batman. Like I say, sometimes the fun just has to end. And I'm thinking…
practical jokes next time around." Alfred, narrating in the present,
comments: "At that time, no one had devoted serious study to the Joker's
flamboyant pathology. Batman was, customarily, ahead of the curve, as they
say." And then Batman, in the past, says of the Joker, "He keeps
coming back… different. I think he recreates himself constantly. Like some kind
of super-MPD. We need to make sure he's carefully monitored in case his
original… his original persona resurfaces." Four times, Morrison delivered
the same assessment of the Joker's changing characterization, although he
perhaps contradicts himself on whether it was Harleen Quinzel or Batman who
first diagnosed this. What is perhaps most interesting about this is that one
of Morrison's high concepts for his run on Batman
was that every era in Batman's past "happened," that the changes in
the published feature should be interpreted as changes that took place in just
one fictional world for various reasons that make sense in that fictional
world, and this idea was introduced back in AA.
Though his vision of Batman changed considerably from 1989 to 2005, Morrison's
use of the metatextual narrative device that every past era of Batman happened
to one and the same character was there in Morrison's Batman stories from the
beginning.
In comparison with Morrison's later works, perhaps the most
important aspect of AA is something
so subtle that many readers may put the work down without having noticed it:
The plot is built around a time loop. Morrison used time travel in the purely
science fiction sense to create a causal loop in time in many of his later
works, such as Seven Soldiers, Final Crisis, and Return of Bruce Wayne. The time loop in AA is more subtle and mysterious: Amadeus Arkham's mother has,
circa 1920, a terrifying vision of a monstrous bat; perhaps the vision drives
her mad, or perhaps her madness produces the vision. At the time she
experiences the vision of the bat, it is seemingly a hallucination, but it
proves to be prophetic, as Batman becomes a terrifying bat figure several
decades later. Her fear of "the Bat" indirectly impacts Batman's
entire career, leading to the creation of Arkham Asylum, and to Cavendish
deciding that he has to trap and/or kill Batman. Did the existence of Batman in
the present create Mrs. Arkham's vision in the past? Morrison leaves that,
characteristically, as a mystery. There is neither science fiction nor time
machines in the story that could explain it, but references to Aleister Crowley
and "that other world… of magic and terror" suggest a supernatural
link between Batman in the present and Mrs. Arkham's visions in the past. It
could, then again, be explained as madness combined with coincidence. Morrison
shows no eagerness to resolve the mystery. We would be naive to dismiss it as
coincidence but reaching too far to consider it definitively attributed to
magic.
The style in which Morrison approaches that mystery is
evocative of his later Batman works. A year later, in 1990, his story
"Gothic" also hints of supernatural evil in a case concerning Gotham
in general and Batman quite personally. The supernatural basis of the story is
rejected by one character, entertained as a possibility by Batman, and kept
ambiguous until a final reveal. Almost two decades later, Morrison teased at a
supernatural basis to the master villain, Doctor Hurt, who was attacking
Batman. Supernatural powers connected to Doctor Hurt were shown an alternate
future story and hinted at in other places. Batman,
R.I.P. was written as "the story of how Batman cheats the Devil"
but Morrison devotedly keeps the fact of the matter ambiguous before
eventually, in another series, linking Doctor Hurt to Darkseid.
In AA, Morrison
first suggests a link between Mrs. Arkham's vision and Batman's reality with a
pair of juxtaposed panels in which we see Mrs. Arkham make a bat-like shadow
figure with her hands, right before the bat signal is seen in present-day
Gotham. This juxtaposition should be seen as evocative by the reader, but may
be seen as a mere device employed by the writer, as when Alan Moore couples a
phrase spoken by one character with similar action taking place in a juxtaposed
narrative. But in AA, the words
joining those two connected visuals are "magic and terror," suggesting
a causal connection. Elsewhere in the story, other suggestions of prophecy come
true, with Amadeus noting a joker card that is found in the house, and Harriet
Arkham's bad dreams preceding her nightmarish death at the hands of Mad Dog
Hawkins.
If we accept the supernatural link, then we have a time loop
in which Batman in at least some way inspires himself, which can be seen as
either tragic or grandiose, in which he is both a victim and a figure so
important that many others lives as mere supporting characters in a drama where
he is the star. Of course, on a metatextual level, that is entirely the case.
Arkham Asylum belongs
to many worlds. It is the last great graphic novel of the Eighties, an early contributor
to a growing cultural fascination with serial killers, a pioneering instance of
psychological and literary devices in superhero comics, a painfully dark and
disturbing work, an early major work by artist Dave McKean, and an early
forebear to Morrison's long run on Batman that began seventeen years later. It
is worthy of consideration in all of these ways, and belonging to so many
worlds, it is something of an oddity in each of them. At the time, it promised
big things to come, from Morrison personally, and in the genre more generally. Now,
we can look back on a quarter century of work since then and appreciate the
many directions that has taken, with Arkham
Asylum having hinted at much that was to come just as Mrs. Arkham's
terrifying vision foretold, in her world, of the coming of Batman.
I love the way you break it down, Rikdad. Great analysis. You definitely noticed some things I never considered before, ie Time Loop, and now I want to go back and take AA off the shelf again for another read.
ReplyDeleteI love this comic, and have a signed copy from Grant Morrison. It was one of the books I read in college that got me seriously back into comics.
What is your take on the ending though? Does Batman let the Doctor go free? That never sat right with me, so I like to assume the authorities were able to take control after Batman left. What do you think?
Thanks, Jonny. I think the reader is likely, in most cases, to have the sense that something funny is being implied about the reality of her vision, but the similarity to time loops in Morrison's later works is something I haven't seen anyone mention before.
ReplyDeleteThat's great that you got an autographed copy. Were you present when he signed it?
I'm not sure what your question about the Doctor is asking – Doctor Cavendish is killed by Doctor Adams. But Batman tells the inmates that they're free to go. Then the Joker says that he knew that all along, and none of them actually leave. Yes, I assume that nobody actually escapes, and that the authorities take control, but it's an intriguing question as to whether Batman was willing to let any of the inmates escape. The idea seems completely contrary to his mission, so how do we explain it?
Was that the idea of your question, or have I gotten the idea wrong?
That was the idea of my question, thanks Rikdad!
DeleteAnd yes, I was lucky enough to meet Grant Morrison at a signing way back around 2006 (just prior to his now famous run on Batman). I distinctly remember telling him that The Joker is my favorite character, and he smiled and told me to keep an eye out for The Joker in his run because he would be making him "scary again", and would be following up on themes he introduced with the character back in AA. :)
I'm not sure how to interpret Batman's declaration that the inmates were free to go. None of them did. If they had, the police were waiting anyway, so perhaps it was a hollow gesture, daring them to escape only to be brought right back inside. So perhaps he was simply reminding them that any effort to challenge him would inevitably result in failure.
ReplyDeleteThat's great that you got the heads-up from Morrison about his plans for the Joker. Here we are nearly 10 years after the run started, and all of those plans have played out. Reading AA, I find it interesting to see where it has all gone, and hoping that it will be followed up still more, if not by Morrison, then by some other writer.