Matt Wagner and Monster Men: Everything Old is New Again

By Thom Young

Matt Wagner burst upon the comics scene in 1983 with his critically acclaimed Grendel published by Comico. He followed up on that success in 1984 with Mage (also by Comico). Those two seminal works stood out prominently from what was being produced by either DC or Marvel at the time—in terms of both innovate writing and fresh illustrative style.

While his interior comics work in recent years has been much less than his fans would like, we are about to have a steady of diet of his dynamic storytelling abilities for the next several months as he has consecutive projects coming out from DC—the current Batman and the Monster Men mini-series that is to be followed by Batman and the Mad Monk.

Judging from the pages I’ve seen, Matt Wagner is on top of his game and should have a hit series that restores Batman to a heroic character that fans can once again learn to love. He recently answered a few questions about his new mini-series.

Thom Young: It’s my understanding that Batman and the Monster Menwill be a sort of revision (and obviously an expansion) of the second Hugo Strange story that appeared in Batman #1 back in 1940, and that it will serve as the story that transitions Batman from having an exclusive focus on organized crime to one who begins to encounter super villains. Is that an accurate description of what you have in mind?


Matt Wagner: Pretty much, yeah. If you look at Year One, you see Bruce pretty much well along the way to achieving his goals—that being to clean up the city that both meant so much to his parents and that ultimately claimed their lives.

I don’t consider Bruce Wayne to be this megalomaniacal nut who’s bent on eliminating crime on a worldwide scale. Let’s face it; he could never achieve such a goal. Instead, he strikes me as very deliberate and methodical. Therefore, he must think he could win this large battle on crime or else he would never attempt it in the first place. He truly believes he can effect a change in Gotham. To that end, he’s created this dramatic persona and terrifying disguise that, so far, has worked almost better than he could have hoped.

Throughout Year One, Batman truly strikes terror into the heart of evildoers, and he has the bad guys running scared. As a result, he begins to think he’s winning. He sees an end to his fearless mission in sight. Carmine Falcone—aka “The Roman”—has been established as the nearly all-powerful head of Gotham’s organized crime scene. Throughout the early parts of my series, we see no trace of The Roman, and that’s meant to indicate that he’s all but gone into hiding. Instead, we see the activities of one of his more important capos, Sal Maroni, whom long-time Batman fans will realize is the mobster who ultimately throws acid in the face of District Attorney Harvey Dent.

In any event, I wanted to explore how Batman goes from this threshold of success to being confronted with the ongoing litany of crazies that later become such a part of the fabric of his war on crime. What exactly happens when our hero begins to encounter characters who aren’t necessarily part of the organized crime scene in Gotham and who aren’t in the least scared of his costumed alter ego?


Young: Your choice of villain for this transition seems natural to me since in Detective Comics #36 (February 1940), Bruce Wayne described Hugo Strange as “the greatest organizer of crime in the world.” The character then moved from being an organized crime boss in that first story to a scientist who invented “an extract that speeds up the growth glands”—allowing him to create 15 foot monsters from mental patients that he had kidnapped from an asylum. How much of the original material in Detective #36 and Batman #1 will you be adapting?

Wagner: It’s obviously no secret that I’m using the storyline you mentioned as well as the two-part story that appeared in Detective #’s 31 and 32 as the springboard for my own series. I wanted to farm some of that unfiltered creativity that appears throughout the pre-Robin Batman stories as I find that these efforts hadn’t yet solidified into the coda of what would become comic book archetypes. Instead, these early adventures seem much more informed by the pulp traditions that were their immediate predecessors.

Again, though, I regard the source material as a springboard. Fans of the original versions will certainly recognize similarities, but I had to update things not only in regards to time frame but also existing continuity. Most readers know that Hugo Strange ultimately becomes obsessed with Batman to an all-but psychotic degree. I took the opportunity to plant the seeds of that fixation herein.


Young: Steve Englehart revisited the same Hugo Strange source material in his classic story from Detective #471-72. Did you re-read Englehart’s story in order to either differentiate your story from his or orchestrate continuity between the two stories (even though his would come later in Batman continuity if it fits in at all anymore)?

Wagner: No, I didn’t re-read Steve’s story even though I remember loving his efforts when I originally read them. As far as continuity goes, I find myself unconcerned with trying to make everything fit to an absolute “T.” I mean, how is Steve’s story supposed to fit into a continuity that was redefined long after its original publication?

I think, in order for these characters and storylines to stay fresh, they are necessarily rebooted every 20-30 years. Changes in technology, socio-political realities, and in the very audience of readership make such reboots necessary. Certain aspects of what had gone before are retained and others are rejected. What ends up sticking to the “continuity wall” are the bits that seem to strike a chord with the reading public. For instance, look at Mark Waid’s recent take on Superman. Birthright represents an utterly new take of the Man of Steel’s origin from its last reboot in the hands of John Byrne. However, Lex is still an evil tycoon rather than a renegade scientist. In the end, I think readers are looking for a good story, and that’s my main concern as well.


Young: I agree that a good story should override continuity concerns, but I’m sure you know that a great deal of fandom are sticklers for continuity and end up panning any book that doesn’t adhere to the canon. Obviously, this isn’t an issue for you, but do you have any thoughts on the staunch view that creators and editors should be “custodians of American mythology” (as I read one reviewer term it)?

Wagner: Look, we know what constitutes the nuts and bolts of these stories/myths. Bruce Wayne is Batman, the batcave is under Wayne Manor, et cetera. I believe trying to stick to continuity is a fine idea but, certainly, even in the most hardcore perfectionist attitude towards this subject there’s bound to be discrepancies and conflicts, right? I mean, how many Batman books have been published—even under just the current continuity? And how many creators have contributed to that narrative strata? There’s no way for it to all line up in a perfect, uninterrupted flow because, let’s face it, most of those creators probably didn’t know every little detail of Batman’s every printed appearance. And, let’s face it; some of those creators’ efforts aren’t very good or memorable to begin with.

I think that not only on the creative end but also on the readership end, all participants choose the narrative elements that make sense to them and that have a binding resonance in their own minds. I think it’s far more important to stay true to the spirit and essence of these myths rather than the minutiae.

I take greater exception to how Batman is often portrayed these days than I do to not incorporating a detail of exactly what happened to him in Detective Comics # whatever. Truthfully, I’m pretty weary of Batman being betrayed as little more than a bad guy himself anymore. Recent depictions sometimes show him as a nearly maniacal sadist. That’s no hero, in my book.

I’m tired of Batman being shown as a barely-restrained psychotic. I don’t want to ever lose sight of the fact that he is the good guy. He’s heroic, brave, and selfless. Too often these days, we see Batman displaying a “my way or the highway” attitude and I just don’t buy. I maintain that Bruce Wayne is kind and gracious at heart. In the memory of his parents, he’s undertaken a huge ordeal, and it has to be for a noble reason. He’s not doing this because he feels at home in the rough-and-tumble criminal element. He’s doing it because he sees that world as wrong, and he’s trying to correct it. He doesn’t get off on beating people up. He’s trying to hammer the world back into shape with a great big “boo!” and he sees his actions as a necessary tool to that end. Also, because he actually thinks he’s winning at this point in his career, he sees a light at the end of the tunnel and perceives a day when Batman’s role is a rare exception rather than a nightly necessity, so he allows himself to be in love.


Young: Yes, I understand you’ll be re-introducing Julie Madison as his love interest. How do you see her as being different from either Vicki Vale or Silver St. Cloud—who are probably Bruce Wayne’s two most prominent recent girlfriends?

Wagner: The mating instinct is natural, and Bruce wants someone with whom he feels he can ultimately share the better world that he is helping to hammer into shape every night. I don’t think he believes he’ll still be putting on the cape and patrolling the Gotham streets at night in twenty years. As a result, he allows Julie (his first girlfriend) to get a little closer than he will with his later liaisons.

In the original 1940s version, Julie was an actress, but I didn’t go that route in my take where she’s the daughter of a prominent Gotham businessman. In keeping with her father’s sense of public altruism, she’s studying to get her law degree with an ultimate aim at working in the state prosecutor’s office. Coincidentally, this is also the approach David Goyer used for the character of Rachel Dawes in his screenplay for Batman Begins. In fact, I happened to click upon several points of similarity to the film that are purely coincidence (I swear! ). I suppose great minds just think alike!

Anyway, I don’t portray Julie as a sheer damsel-in-distress, but neither do I portray her as a hardcore adventure chick either. I really get sick of this trend in popular culture—where everyone seems to have had martial arts training or is only too ready to fearlessly enter utterly dangerous situations without batting an eye. In so many of today’s action movies, you’d think that it’s perfectly normal for someone to do a walk-up-the-wall back flip or have advanced knowledge of automatic weaponry. In reality, people just aren’t like that. Only the characters like Bruce, who has dedicated his entire life to mastering combat techniques, should behave in this manner. So, although Julie is a strong-willed woman and bears a certain sense of bravery, she’s no secret warrior-woman who can stand by Batman’s side in any situation. After all, it’s Bruce she loves, not his alter ego who is unknown to her.

Young: Well that in itself will be a break from the 1940s stories where Julie lost interest in Bruce once she met Batman—as well as from the recent stories with Sasha Bordeaux as a love interest. Given your track record with creating believable characters, I’m sure people will enjoy your new take on the girlfriend angle as well as the fact that you’re going to get back to the heroic Batman. Thank you for taking time out of your schedule and for giving us a Batman that we can enjoy reading again.

Wagner: My pleasure. Thank you. Hey, I’d also like to add a huge shout-out for my editorial staff at DC. Of course, Bob Schreck and I go WAAAAAY back together but working with him is always such a joy. He’s got faith in my abilities and I’ve got faith in his, and that adds up to a seamless working relationship. I often feel like I’m all but doing creator-owned work when I work at DC with Bob, that’s sort of freedom and respect he gives me. And his new assistant, Brandon Montclare, has proven to be a canny and valuable addition to the equation as well. Both of these guys have made the entire production of these two series absolutely smooth sailing indeed!

Discuss this interview on the Feature Fiends Forum!