Tangent Comics: The Batman #1 (1998)

Writer: Dan Jurgens

Layouts: Dan Jurgens

Finishes: Klaus Janson

NOTE: article originally written in September 1998

In the back of this issue, writer Dan Jurgens expresses my initial thoughts about making an original character out of Batman. There have been about eight million different adaptations of Batman over the last ten years, including a few before then. DC’s “Elseworlds” imprint has allowed various writers to come up with all sorts of alternate Batmans. They’ve had Batmen of the future, Batman the Barbarian and even “Batman meets Frankenstein”. So, it appears that everything has been done with Batman. This is where Dan Jurgens has his big challenge.. to make a completely new and original Batman, where the only thing you would recognize is the name.

DC’s “Tangent” line offers new and well, tangent takes on recognizable names. In this Tangent world, technology is advanced as a result of superhuman interference in World War Two. Last year’s Tangent comics overlapped into each other (although each was still a stand-alone issue) and you were given an alternate history lesson with each issue. I’ve only picked up “The Batman” for this year, as nothing else really excited me (Four of the titles were essentially re-hashes of last year).

Dan Jurgens is still making his living out of being “the guy who killed Superman”, in the famous 1992 “Death of Superman”(which turned out to last about six months). When he began to writer Spider-Man a few years back, promo ads said something to the effect of “He Killed Superman.. WHAT will he do to Spider-Man”? This is kinda’ like signing Jeremiah Castille, the lucky Broncos’ DB who recovered the famous “FUMBLE” in the 1987 AFC Championship (game was actually played in 88…details). He has one claim to fame on his resume. I suppose that’s why DC picked Jurgens for this…. nevermind the fact that the dead Superman was only 2% of his work….

This Batman is a cursed knight from King Arthur’s days. He was deceived by Morgan Le Fey (of course… EVERY King Arthur story has to have Morgan le Fey..silly me) into turning against the Round Table. Morgan disguised herself as “The Lady Tasmia” to land one of Arthur’s elite knights. This knight, Sir William (Sir Bill to his friends), was responsible for spearheading Morgan’s army against England and Arthur. Curiously, in these flashback scenes, you are not really sure who is the bigger scumbag.. Sir William or King Arthur. Sir Bill eventually realizes he has been duped, as his “wife” turns into a demon as he realizes he has been sleeping with Morgan Le Fey all these years. In a final act of redemption, Bill saves Arthur’s life by killing Morgan . Anyways, after Morgan is killed, Merlin (see.. EVERY King Arthur story has to have him, too) places a curse on Sir William to be forever imprisoned in the “Castle of the Bat”, until “thou hast atoned for thy sins”.

So, why the heck is he called “Batman”? That would be because while commandeering Morgan’s army, their code of arms featured a Bat…much like you see a Lion on British ones. In effect, the “Bat” symbol is sort of a skewed version of the traditional Batman symbol. Sir Bill also used a bat-like theme on his armor, with spiky shoulder pads and a batsy fin on his helmet. Jurgens admits that he played more with “Batman’s other name: the Dark Knight” when creating this character.

The plot isn’t really much to write about. Sir Bill is trapped in this ethereal castle or “House of Secrets”, that only appears in the mist…and then disappears again. He is trapped inside, but through magic is able to transfer his spirit into his hollow armor. He uses this to atone for his sins by “secretly doing good deeds aroud the countryside”. This reminds me of Commander Rann doing his space exploration through Biotron back in the 70’s “MICRONAUTS” series. A “lifeless emissary” does all the work, while the real brains of the outfit is safe at home. While doing a random “good deed”, the Bat-man comes across a Dr. Imra Ardeen, who is being stalked by the criminal Prysm (who kinda’ look likes Matt Wagner’s Grendel).

Sir Bill believes Imra to be the reincarnation of his long lost love, Lady Tasmia (she was normal, at first, until Morgan got to her and took over her life). He fails at first, but eventually tracks down Prsym, her hostage Ardeen and Prysm’s boss, King Kobra. The Bat-man saves Ardeen from Kobra and his Copperheads. Ardeen was so valuable because she has the key to re-starting power all over the globe. In another Tangent title, all technology was apparently rendered useless. Sir Bill (through the Bat-man) realizes Imra is not Tasmia and flies back to the castle.. “the loneliest man the world has ever know..”

Like I said, not too much of a plot. The main obstacle was establishing a new take on “Batman”. Sure, it’s different, but you don’t really feel any empathy for Sir Bill. It’s tough to root for a guy who once waged war all throughout England. Maybe he realized the error of his ways, but you really don’t care. Almost a little “sympathy for the devil”, as you see in some adaptations of Dracula.

The Bat-man armor looks impressive when it dons its bat-wings and flies across the sky… and looks downright clunky the rest of the time. Besides, Sir Bill also admits that he has killed many people with his sword, in the name of justice. As you may have gathered from my other ramblings, one key rule of Batman is that he never kills. True, this was SUPPOSED to be a completely different Bat-man… but, again, who cares? For a guy who’s supposed to be a KNIGHT, you don’t pick up a great sense of chivalry from him.

We may never see this Bat-man again.. and that could be a shame. The whole “lonely dude who cant leave his castle” could make for some great stories. I feel that is just wasn’t handled properly here. You can kinda’ surmise that this predicament was probably inspired by Bruce Wayne, who isolates himself in his big mansion. Well, by himself whenever Alfred, Robin, Azrael, Nightwing or the occasional guest-star isn’t around.

Maybe if he had some admirable traits, you would actually be patient and want to hear more about Sir Bill. As it is, he’s just some dude who goes through the motions. This Bat-man wouldn’t pan out as a hero, or someone you’d want to read about. He would work out as a semi-recurring character, or even a villain, like Man-Bat does, over in DC’s “real” world.

It’s too bad Sir Bill didn’t have a sidekick. “Sir Robin” comes to mind. There would be much rejoicing.

The Tangent cover designs really get me going. I just like the way the typography is handled on them, giving them a high-end techno, or even a WEB -ish look (Editor’s Note: consider this review was written in 1998). The art is decent, as Jurgens always is. He even begins to look like John Romita, Jr in some places. The biggest downfall is his depictions of King Arthur and Sir Bill… they look too squeaky clean and Disney-ish to be convincing. Arthur even wears his little tiara throughout his battles. Bottom line for this book is: it’s worth 50 cents. A pretty low rating… but you would expect something ALOT better when it’s using one of DC’s flagship names.

Summary: An all-new, all-different Batman. Who lives in a castle and used to hang with King Arthur.
Cover Price: 1.95
Rating: 0.50