What do you think?
Rate this book
The Anatomy of Zur-en-Arrh: Understanding Grant Morrison's Batman
Grant Morrison has made a career of redefining heroes, but his work with Batman has been the most comprehensive. From ARKHAM ASYLUM and JLA to his seven-year run on Batman, Morrison has redefined and reworked the Caped Crusader from the ground up. He's also introduced new characters (such as Damian Wayne) and new concepts (such as Batman, Inc.).
THE ANATOMY OF ZUR-EN-ARRH analyzes Grant Morrison's Batman, including how it understands and reinterprets Batman's long history. Featuring an interview with Grant Morrison.
From Sequart Organization. More info at http://sequart.org
THE ANATOMY OF ZUR-EN-ARRH analyzes Grant Morrison's Batman, including how it understands and reinterprets Batman's long history. Featuring an interview with Grant Morrison.
From Sequart Organization. More info at http://sequart.org
273 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 14, 2014
20 people are currently reading
68 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
July 13, 2014
The Anatomy of Zur-en-Arrh is terribly disappointing. It's poorly edited, to the point where I wonder if they inadvertently published an early draft. For example, Simon Hurt is Morrison's most prominent original Batman villain; William Hurt is an Oscar-winning actor. Walker's prose is clunky and stilted, parsimonious with commas: "So, both the threat and the villain that Batman were after are nowhere to be found by the end of this arc which is disappointing until we realize that the story was always about the mystery itself." He often writes as if he's unsure if events that were clearly depicted on panel and confirmed in dialogue really happened, but with certainty about events that are presented ambiguously.
I don't know who the intended audience for this book is. Someone who's already read Morrison's Batman run will wonder why so much of the text is a simple recitation of the story, sprinkled with analysis that often focuses on irrelevancies. Someone who hasn't read it will find that Walker often punts when he reaches the more difficult and narratively dense portions: "Without going into the specifics of the Archivist's timeline mumbo-jumbo..." and "it would be exceptionally tedious and unnecessary to document each reference that Morrison packs into" Last Rites. What's worse, despite mostly structuring the book as issue-by-issue commentary, Walker often mentions the solutions to mysteries long before they're solved in-story.
It's not clear how much prior general Batman knowledge Walker expects the reader to bring. Are there many readers out there who have never heard of Stephanie Brown, but for whom Tim Drake needs no introduction? The 1963 story "Robin Dies at Dawn" is crucial to Morrison's run, but Walker barely mentions it. In fact, he seems puzzled when Morrison references it in visual motifs and dialogue.
The book's at its most interesting when discussing Morrison's strategies for setting up a stable of villains for Dick Grayson as Batman.
Some of Walker's misreadings suggest an unfamiliarity with key Morrison works. Would the author of Doom Patrol intend characters to "seem evil based upon their freakish appearances"?
Claiming that characters supposedly represent Alan Moore is a common technique for writers who've run out of interesting things to say about Morrison. Sure enough, Walker tries to claim at one point that Dr. Hurt symbolizes Moore, based on an even thinner argument than usually surrounds that notion.
I could continue like this, but it's already too long. In summary, this is a book that goes on for three paragraphs about Robert Browning and King Lear because artist Chris Burnham referenced Dark Tower, his favorite Chicago comic-book store, in an easter egg.
I don't know who the intended audience for this book is. Someone who's already read Morrison's Batman run will wonder why so much of the text is a simple recitation of the story, sprinkled with analysis that often focuses on irrelevancies. Someone who hasn't read it will find that Walker often punts when he reaches the more difficult and narratively dense portions: "Without going into the specifics of the Archivist's timeline mumbo-jumbo..." and "it would be exceptionally tedious and unnecessary to document each reference that Morrison packs into" Last Rites. What's worse, despite mostly structuring the book as issue-by-issue commentary, Walker often mentions the solutions to mysteries long before they're solved in-story.
It's not clear how much prior general Batman knowledge Walker expects the reader to bring. Are there many readers out there who have never heard of Stephanie Brown, but for whom Tim Drake needs no introduction? The 1963 story "Robin Dies at Dawn" is crucial to Morrison's run, but Walker barely mentions it. In fact, he seems puzzled when Morrison references it in visual motifs and dialogue.
The book's at its most interesting when discussing Morrison's strategies for setting up a stable of villains for Dick Grayson as Batman.
Some of Walker's misreadings suggest an unfamiliarity with key Morrison works. Would the author of Doom Patrol intend characters to "seem evil based upon their freakish appearances"?
Claiming that characters supposedly represent Alan Moore is a common technique for writers who've run out of interesting things to say about Morrison. Sure enough, Walker tries to claim at one point that Dr. Hurt symbolizes Moore, based on an even thinner argument than usually surrounds that notion.
I could continue like this, but it's already too long. In summary, this is a book that goes on for three paragraphs about Robert Browning and King Lear because artist Chris Burnham referenced Dark Tower, his favorite Chicago comic-book store, in an easter egg.
October 23, 2019
Worth reading (or skipping) to the end for the Grant Morrison interview, otherwise a lengthy issue by issue synopsis of GM's complex and fascinating Batman run, which is one of the most commentary-worthy set of comics ever.
Unfortunately, the insightful comments here were few in comparison to those that were either banal, or strikingly wrong-headed, e.g., the harping again and again on Batman's responsibility for Talia's war on him, because he rejects her initial offer to team up and rule the world. Uh, that's what makes her a psychopath, dude. Don't buy into her con.
I'm not even pausing to consider why Mr. Walker thinks Talia's Leviathan army of brainwashed slaves is "capitalist."
So, a good idea for a book, but this does not come close to achieving what it sets out to do, alas.
Unfortunately, the insightful comments here were few in comparison to those that were either banal, or strikingly wrong-headed, e.g., the harping again and again on Batman's responsibility for Talia's war on him, because he rejects her initial offer to team up and rule the world. Uh, that's what makes her a psychopath, dude. Don't buy into her con.
I'm not even pausing to consider why Mr. Walker thinks Talia's Leviathan army of brainwashed slaves is "capitalist."
So, a good idea for a book, but this does not come close to achieving what it sets out to do, alas.
February 4, 2016
Rarely do I get to say that something is insightful while also in bad need of an editor and much of which is superfluous. Cody Walker is probably one of the best close readers of Grant Morrison's comics and what he has done here is a 250+ apologia and analysis of Morrison's run on Batman. Furthermore, Morrison's run was long, dense, meta-textual, controversial, and--while I doubt Walker would see it this way--uneven, so this would be an interesting undertaking. Walker is a teacher, and it shows in both the virtues and flaws of "The Anatomy of Zur-en-Arrh." The explorations and explications of theme are, while not exactly scholarly or critical in an academic sense, insightful and show evidence of deep (and scholarly) engagement with material of Morrison and of treating popular culture as literature.
So here's the problem: this book suffers from this teacherly trait in a way that undermines a lot of its readability. There are far, far too many summaries of every issue and arc Grant Morrison ever touched on Batman, and little discussion of how this really related to other Batman writers and other works by Grant Morrison. While Walker's exegesis is strong, the pages upon pages of summaries are unnecessary for those who would be interested enough to read a defense of Morrison, but give too much away for those unfamiliar with the work. This kind of explication with intensive summary is often a teaching tool in a literature class--where one cannot assume everyone has read the work--but an editor should have cut at least fifty pages of this out. Walker's style is reading and personable, but the summaries slow this way, way down.
Furthermore, comparing the differences in say Morrison's work on "Animal Man"--which has the same deconstructive tendencies with Morrison would later take issue with his bete noir, fellow chaos magician Alan Moore--and his later Batman work would be really illuminating. It would also be interesting to compare Frank Miller's or Jeph Loeb's Batman to Morrison's reconstructive work explicitly. Normally, I think it is unfair to critique an author for writing a different book than what one wants, but in this case, it really would help. Walker's brief discussions the contrast between Moore and Morrison is insightful and so I know Walker could do this.
Lastly, while this is an excellent apologia for later Morrison's deconstruction of capitalism around comics and his attempt to re-introduce archetype, camp, and de-humanizing artifice into comics from a philosophical point of view, Walker isn't critical of where this doesn't work unless the fault isn't with Morrison. Walker's discussion about how the conflicts between marketing, the New 52, and Batman, Inc, really undercut some of Morrison's better writing at the end of his last run on Batman is actually one of the best part of the books, but one often feels like Walker is reading Morrison a bit too "occultly" to justify seeming incoherence and searching for hints to make things fit better than they do. Even good apologias need to be critical of their subject matter sometimes.
Ultimately, this makes for an very uneven read itself (perhaps this is ironic given Morrison's Batman run). Devotees of either Batman or Morrison will skim a lot of this book because the summaries aren't necessary to them, and the neophyte will be utterly lost. This is a shame because, like I have said, Walker is a strong reader with a penetrating mind and a good eye for detail as well as a pleasant and enjoyable writer. I suggest this book only with those caveats strongly in mind.
So here's the problem: this book suffers from this teacherly trait in a way that undermines a lot of its readability. There are far, far too many summaries of every issue and arc Grant Morrison ever touched on Batman, and little discussion of how this really related to other Batman writers and other works by Grant Morrison. While Walker's exegesis is strong, the pages upon pages of summaries are unnecessary for those who would be interested enough to read a defense of Morrison, but give too much away for those unfamiliar with the work. This kind of explication with intensive summary is often a teaching tool in a literature class--where one cannot assume everyone has read the work--but an editor should have cut at least fifty pages of this out. Walker's style is reading and personable, but the summaries slow this way, way down.
Furthermore, comparing the differences in say Morrison's work on "Animal Man"--which has the same deconstructive tendencies with Morrison would later take issue with his bete noir, fellow chaos magician Alan Moore--and his later Batman work would be really illuminating. It would also be interesting to compare Frank Miller's or Jeph Loeb's Batman to Morrison's reconstructive work explicitly. Normally, I think it is unfair to critique an author for writing a different book than what one wants, but in this case, it really would help. Walker's brief discussions the contrast between Moore and Morrison is insightful and so I know Walker could do this.
Lastly, while this is an excellent apologia for later Morrison's deconstruction of capitalism around comics and his attempt to re-introduce archetype, camp, and de-humanizing artifice into comics from a philosophical point of view, Walker isn't critical of where this doesn't work unless the fault isn't with Morrison. Walker's discussion about how the conflicts between marketing, the New 52, and Batman, Inc, really undercut some of Morrison's better writing at the end of his last run on Batman is actually one of the best part of the books, but one often feels like Walker is reading Morrison a bit too "occultly" to justify seeming incoherence and searching for hints to make things fit better than they do. Even good apologias need to be critical of their subject matter sometimes.
Ultimately, this makes for an very uneven read itself (perhaps this is ironic given Morrison's Batman run). Devotees of either Batman or Morrison will skim a lot of this book because the summaries aren't necessary to them, and the neophyte will be utterly lost. This is a shame because, like I have said, Walker is a strong reader with a penetrating mind and a good eye for detail as well as a pleasant and enjoyable writer. I suggest this book only with those caveats strongly in mind.
September 24, 2014
Cody Walker is quite, quite sharp, and Sequart should be applauded for supporting this work. However, for all of the excellent insights into Grant Morrison's design and the remarkable attention to detail, THE ANATOMY OF ZUR-EN-ARRH feels like it's missing a bone or two. Perhaps that fault -- the sprawling, disconnected observations -- should not be laid at Walker's feet, since he obviously toiled and analyzed Morrison's run expertly; perhaps either too much of Morrison leaked into Walker, too many ideas and notes to keep things coherent. Or, alternatively, a codex prose book was a sabotaging medium, whereas a hypertext might have served Walker's purposes better.
(Two minor notes: a second edition should include some mention of Neil Gaiman's two-part interlude following "Batman RIP" and the controversy of Nightrunner. Also, a second edition needs to address the numerous typos that found their way into the book...unless, Riddler-like, the missing letters were meant to spell something out...)
(Two minor notes: a second edition should include some mention of Neil Gaiman's two-part interlude following "Batman RIP" and the controversy of Nightrunner. Also, a second edition needs to address the numerous typos that found their way into the book...unless, Riddler-like, the missing letters were meant to spell something out...)
September 10, 2014
Cody's done a great job of untangling some of the difficult plot threads of Morrison's years-long Batman run. The book also does a great job of raising interpretive questions. Any Morrison or Batman fan will appreciate this book!
July 14, 2015
Insightful, although too often the book seems like straight synopsis and the different sections tend to repeat things as if they were originally published independently from one another before being collected. It's also not a very close reading, but it's good for what it is.
June 21, 2014
Outstanding, must read for fans
April 12, 2023
Scratching the surface.
I always like reading Grant Morrison's comics, but I'm also left with the feeling afterwards that I missed something... Maybe a lot of things, so I welcome analysis of his work. AoZ has some of the analysis I'm craving, however I felt it could do without editorializing. The writer often comments on how "cool" a scene is or calls Morrison "brilliant" while discussing a particular issue of Batman. It distracts from actually digging into the narrative. Also the summaries tend to drag. It feels a little like a college paper trying to get the page count up.
I don't want to throw the entire book under the bus. I clearly got some Morrison analysis, and at times it's really insightful. I just felt like the format for delivery could have used some fine tuning.
I always like reading Grant Morrison's comics, but I'm also left with the feeling afterwards that I missed something... Maybe a lot of things, so I welcome analysis of his work. AoZ has some of the analysis I'm craving, however I felt it could do without editorializing. The writer often comments on how "cool" a scene is or calls Morrison "brilliant" while discussing a particular issue of Batman. It distracts from actually digging into the narrative. Also the summaries tend to drag. It feels a little like a college paper trying to get the page count up.
I don't want to throw the entire book under the bus. I clearly got some Morrison analysis, and at times it's really insightful. I just felt like the format for delivery could have used some fine tuning.
August 24, 2018
Overall this is a good and exhaustive examination of a most unusual era in Batman stories. The author goes to great lengths uncovering symbolism and parallels to other stories in Morrison's run on the Batman comics. Sometimes he's a bit of a windbag, and he often repeats himself. But this does not detract too much from the work being enjoyable and thought provoking. Most importantly, the author takes the comics he's dissecting seriously. And that makes this Batman fan happy.
December 6, 2024
Love the energy, but man… Could have really done with some editing. As much as I love the Morrison run, most of the analysis was redundant and unnecessary, and recapping every single issue extensively really is a drag if you’ve read the comics.
November 29, 2015
An exceptionally in depth book that examines Grant Morrison's extended stretch on Batman. Coming on the heels of the company-wide crossover and with a fresh start "One Year Later," as it were, Morrison's work was a shockingly different and fresh work that demanded multiple readings to fully make sense of them. Cody Walker helps a considerable amount here, clarifying some of the symbolism that hid in the shadows even through multiple readings, and connecting some of the dots between Morrison's long-term story and some of his earlier works; Batman related and otherwise.
This is useful and necessary because Morrison's work on Batman demands multiple readings; in fairness, the first reading can often leave the reader grasping at any bit of meaning; and is better suited to being read in one sitting so that ideas and concepts are fresher in the readers mind. Walker helpfully offers a precis of each issue and shows how they relate to previous issues, both those by Morrison and any and all that came before it.
And that is the crux of Walker's argument, his thesis, that Morrison's Batman run was based on the idea that all Batman comics have happened, no matter how far-fetched, and that they all matter. When this idea was first expressed, and after reading the collected Black Casebook which contains some of the older, weirder comic books that Morrison based his run on, the entirety of Morrison's work on Batman and into Batman, Inc., makes much more sense. While Walker's thesis is not particularly new, he excels at putting all the threads together, and even better he shows how those threads underlay and support all of Morrison's work.
Walker also helps to understand the point where Morrison's work seemed to have gone off the rails, the second volume of Batman, Inc. Coming after the company wide reboot known as the New 52, Morrison was hampered by the company's decision to start all their comics over and eliminate some of their characters; particularly hampered as Morrison was actively using some of those characters in Batman, Inc. (The flaws of the reboot are many, but the attempt to take all of Batman's previous history and compress it into a supposed five year time period is perhaps one of the most nonsensical, and as of this date, DC has never explained how Batman's history fits into the timeline they have given.) Walker shows how well Morrison worked around the problems of the New 52, and also makes better sense of his work, because trying to read it in context of the New 52 was difficult because the two could not easily be reconciled. Walker makes it clear that they could not be reconciled because they should not be reconciled. Morrison was working off the previous playbook for Batman, because the playbook he was using was the better one for Batman, it was literally about building a better Batman, not rehashing the same thing over and over again. DC has chosen to continue rehashing instead of trying to reinvent (even in the current state where they have attempted to throw out many of the rules that Walker introduces in the opening of his work).
There are some flaws in the work; a technical error early on about when Batman used Venom; and Walker repeats some ideas again and again, including the thesis. It could be that the intention is to make sure the reader understands the ideas, or just Walker's particular writing style. He has a curious propensity to use the same quotes to make different points, which is an excellent use of primary sources, but still could have benefited from a mention that the quote had been used previously.
Those flaws are minor however in what is an excellent interpretation of Morrison's work. He shows both a deep understanding of the work and the history of the character, but also an interest in the work that matches the interest that most people who read Morrison's run had in the character and the work. Even better, rather than closing the subject, it does the opposite; it whets the reader's appetite and leaves them wanting to reread all those comics yet again.
This is useful and necessary because Morrison's work on Batman demands multiple readings; in fairness, the first reading can often leave the reader grasping at any bit of meaning; and is better suited to being read in one sitting so that ideas and concepts are fresher in the readers mind. Walker helpfully offers a precis of each issue and shows how they relate to previous issues, both those by Morrison and any and all that came before it.
And that is the crux of Walker's argument, his thesis, that Morrison's Batman run was based on the idea that all Batman comics have happened, no matter how far-fetched, and that they all matter. When this idea was first expressed, and after reading the collected Black Casebook which contains some of the older, weirder comic books that Morrison based his run on, the entirety of Morrison's work on Batman and into Batman, Inc., makes much more sense. While Walker's thesis is not particularly new, he excels at putting all the threads together, and even better he shows how those threads underlay and support all of Morrison's work.
Walker also helps to understand the point where Morrison's work seemed to have gone off the rails, the second volume of Batman, Inc. Coming after the company wide reboot known as the New 52, Morrison was hampered by the company's decision to start all their comics over and eliminate some of their characters; particularly hampered as Morrison was actively using some of those characters in Batman, Inc. (The flaws of the reboot are many, but the attempt to take all of Batman's previous history and compress it into a supposed five year time period is perhaps one of the most nonsensical, and as of this date, DC has never explained how Batman's history fits into the timeline they have given.) Walker shows how well Morrison worked around the problems of the New 52, and also makes better sense of his work, because trying to read it in context of the New 52 was difficult because the two could not easily be reconciled. Walker makes it clear that they could not be reconciled because they should not be reconciled. Morrison was working off the previous playbook for Batman, because the playbook he was using was the better one for Batman, it was literally about building a better Batman, not rehashing the same thing over and over again. DC has chosen to continue rehashing instead of trying to reinvent (even in the current state where they have attempted to throw out many of the rules that Walker introduces in the opening of his work).
There are some flaws in the work; a technical error early on about when Batman used Venom; and Walker repeats some ideas again and again, including the thesis. It could be that the intention is to make sure the reader understands the ideas, or just Walker's particular writing style. He has a curious propensity to use the same quotes to make different points, which is an excellent use of primary sources, but still could have benefited from a mention that the quote had been used previously.
Those flaws are minor however in what is an excellent interpretation of Morrison's work. He shows both a deep understanding of the work and the history of the character, but also an interest in the work that matches the interest that most people who read Morrison's run had in the character and the work. Even better, rather than closing the subject, it does the opposite; it whets the reader's appetite and leaves them wanting to reread all those comics yet again.
February 6, 2015
Grant Morrison is a really heady writer. His stories are textured and challenge the readers imagination. So, of course, I didn't like him in my youth! I didn't really start getting into his work until he started on JLA. I didn't really "get him", but it had all the best super-heroes and the first issue cover grabbed me. I would read those comics and really dig the action and art. The stories still left me wondering. I liked the way he wrote Batman, though! He always wrote Batman as the real badass that he is. Always being one step ahead of everyone and always saving everyone's bacon! When he took-over Batman, I wasn't disappointed. I knew he could write the character. I enjoyed his run! I loved Damien from the start! I really love his Batman And Robin run! Still, there were layers to the stories that I wasn't "getting". This book really put things in perspective and helped my to make the connections. The issue-by-issue commentary was a boon.
March 26, 2016
Doesn't do exactly what it promises, that is, allowing the reader to understand Grant Morrison's Batman run.
However, it does serve as a decent issue-by-issue, panel-by-panel unpacking of the highly condensed patchwork of themes, character development, symbolisms and metaphors, and sometimes plot narration that Morrison left for us to figure out on our own.
The book feels like the first half of an actual treatise to understanding Morrison's Batman: the unpacking is done, but the interpretation and repackaging is sorely missing.
Note: even though Walker is quite thorough with the unpacking, not all of the key plot elements were given synopsis. This should not be seen as an alternative to reading Morrison, but as a companion instead.
However, it does serve as a decent issue-by-issue, panel-by-panel unpacking of the highly condensed patchwork of themes, character development, symbolisms and metaphors, and sometimes plot narration that Morrison left for us to figure out on our own.
The book feels like the first half of an actual treatise to understanding Morrison's Batman: the unpacking is done, but the interpretation and repackaging is sorely missing.
Note: even though Walker is quite thorough with the unpacking, not all of the key plot elements were given synopsis. This should not be seen as an alternative to reading Morrison, but as a companion instead.
June 21, 2016
It's a fairly deep analysis of Grant Morrison's various Batman comics. This covers years of material.
I haven't quite finished the book, but it starts to drag a lot. I appreciate the author's attention to detail, but I seem to have lost the thread of his central critical argument.
I haven't quite finished the book, but it starts to drag a lot. I appreciate the author's attention to detail, but I seem to have lost the thread of his central critical argument.
May 8, 2015
Couldn't bring myself to finish the slog. It reads like a high school book report. The typography for the book makes it even worse to read.
December 14, 2016
Often insightful, but repetitious and overdoes synopsis, rather than analysis.
April 12, 2017
Really helpful as a companion to the often oblique Morrison stories. It was fun to reflect back on my favorites and have a guide to discovering the end of his run, which I hadn't previously gotten around to.
It probably warns the reader somewhere but, to rehash, beware of spoilers. Readers are expected to have a working memory of the entire run beforehand. I didn't know who the leader of Leviathan was and this book blows that surprise several issues in advance.
As a Batman history expert, I occasionally questioned the specifics given. For example, is Untold Legend really the first book in which the fate of Joe Chill is shown? I always thought that was a recap.
Anyway, now I'm inspired to start again from the beginning, reading Morrison's comics followed by Walker's analyses.
It probably warns the reader somewhere but, to rehash, beware of spoilers. Readers are expected to have a working memory of the entire run beforehand. I didn't know who the leader of Leviathan was and this book blows that surprise several issues in advance.
As a Batman history expert, I occasionally questioned the specifics given. For example, is Untold Legend really the first book in which the fate of Joe Chill is shown? I always thought that was a recap.
Anyway, now I'm inspired to start again from the beginning, reading Morrison's comics followed by Walker's analyses.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews