POLL: How do you rate the "Hush" story arc?

[Lorendiac]

I was in a thread on another forum where the conversation had turned to whether or not "Hush" was overrated beyond what it deserved (whatever that might be). Comments from others in that thread led me to realize that I honestly don't know just how many of my fellow Batman fans would give "Hush" a high rating in the first place!

So this is your chance! Share your opinion by clicking to vote! Did you think it was a wonderful piece of storytelling about Batman and some of his friends and enemies, or do you groan whenever you remember it, or are you somewhere in between?

(Remember, I'm only talking about the 12-part arc which ran from "Batman #608" to "Batman #619," and not about any later stories which used the character of Hush after Jeph Loeb and Jim Lee had introduced him to us!)

[Stazz]

Good. I think the story's only really let down by the ending and Tommy being Hush all along. His motivation didn't make much sense, since it was supposedly about how he was mad Bruce stopped him from getting wealthy as a kid. Tommy got rich anyway, so it seemed illogical. Heart of Hush "fixed" that with it being about how his mother was always comparing them, but at the time...yeah.

[SouthtownKid]

Part of the thing about Hush is that it was rated very highly by people of a certain age group with a certain amount of experience with Batman and reading comics in general. It was a GREAT tour of and introduction to the entire Batman universe for people just discovering it. But almost a decade later, it may not hold up as well for those same people who loved it, now that they are older (barring nostalgia).

But it did exactly what it set out to do, and very well. If a new reader went into it knowing nothing about Batman, his friends, his enemies, his world, that reader came out of Hush with a working knowledge of all of it.

It's part of why I have to laugh when I see people bash Loeb for his current comics, which still sell through the roof. There is not a lot of difference, and a lot of the people who loved Hush would love his current work as well, if they were still at the age they were when they read Hush, and still had the same ideas about what was cool and what excited them in comics.

Some people who originally did love Hush, will now try to pretend they never liked it rather than admit and accept that it's possible for their own tastes to change over time, and rather than admit that Loeb's current work is just as valid as Hush was, but that they as an older reader now just don't happen to be part of the same target audience anymore.

[Devil_Hanzo]

I'm not young (hit the big 3-0 this year), but HUSH was the first trade I read when I got back into comics a few years back. At the time I enjoyed it, but I really didn't have anything to compare it too. Looking back, it's still beautifully illustrated and my biggest gripe was that Hush was Not Jason Todd (instead, Jason came back in a much lamer fashion). It's not Shakespeare and I've since read loads of Batman and other DCU books that blow it out of the water, but it's certainly not Loeb's worst work.

[skywatcher]

It's part of why I have to laugh when I see people bash Loeb for his current comics, which still sell through the roof. There is not a lot of difference, and a lot of the people who loved Hush would love his current work as well, if they were still at the age they were when they read Hush, and still had the same ideas about what was cool and what excited them in comics.

I disagree. We were running long conversations here at Newsarama about the plot holes in the story back when the issues were first published. Why do you think it was a decade ago, though?
I do agree the book sold in droves just like Loeb's current work, but I think this was largely due to Jim Lee's artwork-do you see the parallels with the latest material? Loeb is invariably teamed with fan-favourite artists.

[SouthtownKid]

I disagree. We were running long conversations here at Newsarama about the plot holes in the story back when the issues were first published.

Yeah, no doubt -- because that's what people here on the internet do. They bash and nitpick. And those bashing, nitpicking people were of the age and comics experience to do that. And when one person finds a little detail that bugs him or doesn't fit, he shares that complaint with everyone else... and then, suddenly that little detail bothers EVERYONE, regardless of whether it did before (or if they even would have noticed it) or not.

What I was talking about were the people new to Batman (and sometimes to comics in general). Those are the people that book was for. And among the people who say they loved Hush, many of them also say it was their introduction to Batman comics. For some, it was their introduction to DC Comics.

Why do you think it was a decade ago, though?

I said "almost." Although I guess even that is stretching it. I guess it just feels longer ago to me.

[skywatcher]

[q that's what people here on the internet do. They bash and nitpick. .

The discussion I saw was definitely constructive criticism rather than "bashing and nitpicking". I think most were disappointed mainly that Hush didn't turn out to be Jason Todd, anger that was compounded when Todd was resurrected some time later. Nowhere was the arc advertised as being for new or younger readers and there were plenty of adults and younger readers criticising Loeb's plotting skills, just as there are now.
Do you also like Chuck Austen's work?

[SouthtownKid]

[q that's what people here on the internet do. They bash and nitpick. .

The discussion I saw was pretty constructive criticism. Nowhere was the arc advertised as being for new or younger readers and there were plenty of adults criticising Loeb's plots just as there are now.
Do you also like Chuck Austen's work?

Great attempt at marginalizing my opinion. But actually, I very much DO like Superman: Metropolis. If people can drop the bandwagon jumping for a few minutes sometime, they have the opportunity to enjoy one of -- if not THE -- best Jimmy Olsen stories ever told (although I enjoy the first half more than the second). But I know how much the villagers love their torches. Probably more than they love a Jimmy Olsen story. And being part of a mob can be so warm and comforting.

As for the "Nowhere was the arc advertised..." thing, give me a break. What was that arc other than a tour of the Batman Universe? It played like a 'greatest hits' compilation. It systematically introduced and explored (briefly) his entire cast and rogues gallery, one by one, and repeated a bunch of 'best of' moments, like Batman sword fighting Ra's in the desert.

And yeah, obviously there were a bunch of adults criticizing it at the time. That's exactly what I've been saying.

[ibistheinvincible]

Great attempt at marginalizing my opinion.

Now you know how I feel!

[SouthtownKid]

Great attempt at marginalizing my opinion.

Now you know how I feel!

Sorry, but that wasn't marginalizing your opinion. It was pointing out that you didn't actually have an opinion. You pretended to have an opinion based on your pretending to have read the comic people were talking about, but later admitted you had formed your "opinion" based on reading other people's online reviews.

In direct contrast to that, Skywatcher and I have both read Hush. Completely different situation. If it turned out that I had never read Hush, but was just arguing to argue anyway based on what I'd heard other random people say about Hush at some point in the past, Skywatcher would be completely justified for tearing me a new one for that.

It's probably also worth pointing out that I wouldn't send him a death threat over it, unlike a certain someone.

[ibistheinvincible]

Great attempt at marginalizing my opinion.

Now you know how I feel!

Sorry, but that wasn't marginalizing your opinion. It was pointing out that you didn't actually have an opinion. You pretended to have an opinion based on your pretending to have read the comic people were talking about, but later admitted you had formed your "opinion" based on reading other people's online reviews.

In direct contrast to that, Skywatcher and I have both read Hush. Completely different situation. If it turned out that I had never read Hush, but was just arguing to argue anyway based on what I'd heard other random people say about Hush at some point in the past, Skywatcher would be completely justified for tearing me a new one for that.

It's probably also worth pointing out that I wouldn't send him a death threat over it, unlike a certain someone.

It's not my fault you can't take a joke. Get over it, that's what REAL life is like!
And you still take comics far too seriously IMO...You need to grow some ballz and get over yourself while you're at it.

[TheSecondLex]

Good. Definitely 7 to 8 of 10.

Got me back into comics and into Jim Lee's art. Loved the idea of Tommy Elliot (sort of a modern day Wrath), even if he was co-opted somewhat by AJ Lieberman's Gotham Knights run.

If I had one request to make for the story, it would have been more scenes with the Riddler and the Scarecrow. I know it's supposed to be a mystery, but it would be nice to see some behind the scenes/apocrypha between Crane, Nigma and Hush involving their plan. Sort of old school Legion of Doom stuff.

[Devil_Hanzo]

The one thing that I really didn't like was the inclusion of Harold -- he just kinda came out of no where, near the end, while all the other major players were revealed earlier in the story. At the time, I had no idea this guy even existed, so for him to show up, and to have a major part of the plot (the one who betrayed Bruce), without at least being referenced earlier in the story, did not seem fair. I guess this is one of the things you can definitely blame on the writer.

[ducktales23]

It was an excellent story, with great art.

My only complaint was that this should have been used as the definitive return of Jason Todd, and not the one written by Judd Winick.

[AeroRep]

I love the comment "You take comics way too seriously." None of us would even be on a comic messageboard posting if we didn't. I wouldn't waste my time and money on anything if I didn't. Back to Hush, when I first read it my major criticism was that it was such a quick read with little substance (Long Halloween anyone?). I remember finishing the first trade in no time flat and thinking "This is the legendary Hush story?! Fortunately the second trade was much stronger and denser, thus somewhat salvaging the story despite still leaving a sour taste in my mouth. I immediately decided to reread it in a few weeks to see how it would hold up in the all important rereadability category, thus giving it a second and ultimately last chance to shine. Fortunately it was better the second time around, but still suffered from being a quick read, which regrettably many of Loeb's books do. He likes to write stories like they are summer movie blockbusters with a galaxy of stars, which is exactly what Hush is. However those types of tales tend to lack substance. On the plus side, it is fun, the artwork is fantastic, and it certainly is a great book to introduce non-fans to Batman's unsurpassed gallery of rogues and solid cast of supporting characters. Final grade, B maybe B+.

[freakybatman]

Hush was an amazing story arc.

and one of the few things i liked Jeph Loeb did

[theredhoodx]

i thought it was good. unfortunately i read other loeb books after this one though thinkin the same thing would be true. got me into batman though.

[ibistheinvincible]

I thought Vol. One was better than Two (in the sense that it flowed more smoothly and had a coherent narrative). The second half had way too many villains "crammed" into the story IMHO.

[skywatcher]

[ that's what people here on the internet do. They bash and nitpick. .

The discussion I saw was pretty constructive criticism. Nowhere was the arc advertised as being for new or younger readers and there were plenty of adults *and younger readers* criticising Loeb's plots just as there are now.
Do you also like Chuck Austen's work?

Great attempt at marginalizing my opinion. If people can drop the bandwagon jumping for a few minutes

Austen and Loeb are not derided because their stories are read by the wrong audience demographic! Those "aged" readers don't then "band" together to "bash and nitpick"; the scripts are criticised (by many) for their (many) faults.

As for the "Nowhere was the arc advertised..." thing, give me a break. What was that arc other than a tour of the Batman Universe? It played like a 'greatest hits' compilation. It systematically introduced and explored (briefly) his entire cast and rogues gallery, one by one, and repeated a bunch of 'best of' moments, like Batman sword fighting Ra's in the desert.

So how is that advertising as being for the younger reader? If anything, visiting Batman's "greatest hits" would be more likely to attract the nostalgic older fan!
Is the reason you are claiming it was aimed at children because you were obviously one yourself when it was published a "decade" ago?
Can it be that, reading it now, you wonder why you thought it was so good at the time?!
I agree that it's generally children who would lack the critical faculties to see the faults in Loeb's storyline, but that doesn't mean it was aimed at that age group! You do realise what the average age of comic readers is? DC realise it too and certainly realised it back then!

obviously there were a bunch of adults criticizing it at the time. That's exactly what I've been saying.

Read my post again, (not your edit of it ) I said there was a variety of age groups making critical comments back in 2003 (six years ago for those who can't count) when the comics were published monthly. You can still search the threads in the Newsarama Version 1 archive and I can assure you they are not "bashing and nitpicking".
Far from being a story aimed at getting new readers to pick up Batman for the first time, Hush was, rather, an album of opportunities to showcase Jim Lee's artwork! Why else have gatefold covers etc?
It was Lee's artwork above all else which sold this book and for that alone I voted it "good" in the poll.

[SouthtownKid]

Read my post again, (not your edit of it ) I said there was a variety of age groups making critical comments back in 2003

Leaving aside everything else for the moment, be fair: I did not edit your post. YOU edited your post after I began typing my response quoting it.