Here's what nobody gets about this story: It actually isn't a mystery at all, and once you realize that, a bunch of the criticism goes away. I forget if it was marketed that way at the time, but regardless of how DC Editorial tried to market it, the story absolutely isn't a mystery to anyone except Batman himself within the story. Most of the negativity centers around the story being a "terrible mystery", what with the predictable reveal and many things being hidden in plain sight, combined with the exposition dump at the end where Riddler reveals a ton of things the reader couldn't have known about beforehand. But the story isn't even written as a mystery to begin with, which becomes glaringly obvious upon repeat readings. It is a TRAGEDY, the theme of which is that Batman/Bruce cannot ever fully trust anyone, because everyone he gets close to either dies or betrays him, and that's the curse of choosing to be Batman. Furthermore, by having Thomas Elliot be the very first one to do so, back when they were kids, it frames this theme of betrayal as one of the central themes to Bruce's entire life. Even his earliest, most innocent childhood memories aren't left untainted by the fact that he has never truly had any real allies, save Alfred. This changes the Superman issue, for example, from being "pointless" to being paramount. It illustrates how one way or another, Bruce will inevitably be in conflict with everyone he cares about, even his closest friends. Showing off the Superman supporting cast illustrates just how different they are, as Clark has a network of people around him that he knows he can trust, something Bruce simply can't fully commit to because being Batman won't allow for that. The reveal of Hush as Elliot is done so we the reader can stop trying to "solve the mystery" which isn't there and simply go along for the ride the story takes us on. The chaos and confusion the reader feels as the story goes on is meant to parallel the same things Batman feels as he tries to force the pieces to fit and constantly fails, because he doesn't have the crucial details. The story tries to get us inside his head, to make us feel what it must often feel like to be Batman, projecting outward confidence while inside knowing that things just don't make sense and constantly wondering what will go wrong next.. The ending with Selina pretty much gives the entire thing away. The entire story teases a happy ending for Bruce and Selina, only for it all to fall apart with one careless word. Was it "just" a slip of the tongue, or was she secretly in on the con from the start, playing him like all the others? He can never truly know, which is why he breaks it off with her and can never settle down with her. Absolute trust is simply not a luxury Batman can afford; that is the tragedy and theme of the story. If you read it as a mystery, then yeah, it's not very good at that. If you read it simply as a tragedy about how many different ways it sucks to be Batman, primarily constantly being attacked from all sides by various maniacs while also always being afraid that your closest friends will turn on you, then it reads completely differently and becomes quite a lot better.
If I had a nickel for every time Jim Lee's art saved a mediocre story by an acclaimed Batman writer, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird it happened twice.
21:47 think you might confused batman with superman there. sup is the one who is ment to inspire to do better, batsy is the one who is ment to scare you away from doing bad or he will come and get you.
DC should make exactly what 1939 BAT-MAN was. Feared vengeful killer. I mean, come on! Its 1939! It's a different world back then! In today`s time, any armed thug wont fear a man on a batsuit. But back in 1939, and this guy kills. That should freak mafias and criminals as the news spreads that BAT-MAN is something to be feared. People think differently back then and would think that BAT-MAN is a monster of some-kind. Just imagine BAT-MAN terrorising Falcone gang in such old school style shit. Its going to be not the same batman we grew up with. Its going to be THE MYSTERY OF THE BAT-MAN
"A high school student with attitude" sounds exactly like something studio execs would say, hoping to reach deep into the pockets of young millennials. This is one reason why I like Terry, as part of his development is losing the attitude and accepting his responsibilities, while managing to stay idealistic and hopeful, eventually developing to his very own Batman, different from the brooding dark knight who came before, but every bit the hero.
Imagine if villains tended to recruit Riddler for their big plans, not to help them, but to distract him so he doesn't give the whole operation away. You have to lie to him about the plan and give him some useless makework to do, because in his own way he is easily the biggest snitch in Gotham.
I'm having trouble grasping how you came to the conclusion that DC had _good_ continuity before all this? Sure Batman's wasn't as bad as Superman or especially Hawkman... I'm told. I've never rĕad a single Hawkman comic before, but there were like a dozen post-Crisis versions merging in Zero-hour, which was only ten years after that, so something major must've gone down. Where was I? Batman's continuity wasn't _the worst,_ but I certainly wouldn't call it "good" or "coherent" or whatever you said.
Well, this version of the Hush Character is still miles better than the Hush from Batman Eternal. Overall I enjoy Hush for what it is, and enjoy it more with each read. It feels like the most modern version of classic Batman and that's fun
I thought the book was great. Villain twist felt weird and a little confusing, but I really liked it. Never read heart of hush, but I hear it’s well written
It’s nothing high concept but Hush is honestly just a joyride of spectacle and classic Batman adventuring. I definitely enjoyed rereading it recently despite the plot holes. This book pretty much defined the look of the character for the new millennium - you can see the inspiration in the Nolan movies and especially the Rocksteady games.
It's all the new characters that this film introduced- Batgirl, Poison Ivy, Bane, and Mr Freeze. None of them are developed properly in the film and it gets messy because you don't feel anything particularly for those characters and their exploits. Apart from the Bat credit card, which is ridiculous, Clooney comes out of it well enough; Arnie not so, but it is the script and film direction that deny him a better opportunity
That ending really sums up my complicated relationship to the story. I cannot stand it anymore, but it was one of my first Batman comics. However my second or third was Knightfall followed shortly by No Man's Land. I fell in love with 90s Batman and that era of continuity that you talked about. Almost instantly I resented Hush for killing of Harold, poor sweet Harold.
In 1976, Batman Family #6 debuted "Joker's Daughter" who went by the name "Harlequin," and while different colors, her alternating 4 sectioned leotard is the EXACT same design as Harley's!
Then some years later Jason Todd pulls a Hush-obvious plot in a story where Hush was built up to be dangerous and then gets tossed aside easily. IT'S LIKE POETRY, IT RHYMES! {g}
Re: the rainbow batsuit, to be fair, the rainbow wasn't a gay symbol until the 70s. And the gay rainbow originally had eight colors. Silver Age Batman is weird. It's like a quest for identity that wasn't even necessary in retrospect. (Most people frankly didn't give a damn about the Comics Code Authority.) I will say that it's weird that they associated Robin with the 1966 TV show; Robin had been here since 1940.
Batman: Hush's biggest strengths are also the source of its biggest issues: It's baby's first Batman story. It goes over basically everything the character has to offer, but doesn't excel at any of them and carries most of the series' baggage. It really comes down to whether or not you can take the good with the bad or not.
