The Dark Knight Returns: Books 3 and 4

In chapters 3 and 4 we follow the Caped Crusader through his final confrontations with both his greatest enemy, the Joker and his (once) greatest ally, the Man of Steel, Superman. Whilst Batman, faces these rather extreme threats, we as an audience take in many more events than our actual protagonist is involved in. A Russian Cold War, a mounting gang problem, looting and rioting are some of the few subplots that we are presented with. Though, each of these subplots are eventually resolved by the Dark Knight himself, they essentially built entirely on their own. 

What Frank Miller does to facilitate the growth of these subplots is rather ingenious, if not a little disjointed, so far as pacing and the flow of the story goes. For example, throughout chapters 3 and 4  we are given newscasts about the increasingly violent acts of the newly formed gang, the sons of Batman. Instead, of a traditional transition into and out of these scenes, Frank Miller takes up only 2 or 3 panels from a page to tell the story. Another quick cutaway that struck me as particularly interesting was the one in book 3, where Batman and Robin are riding to their next destination in search of clues to the Joker's plan, but just prior, we encounter three panels of a flashback or possible daydream of Bruce's father getting shot. Again, this is resolved by Batman later as he justifies to himself the possible killing of the Joker, but the cutaway is more drastic and almost random. Overall, this technique works both for and against this book. On the one hand, it does accomplish the act of advancing the plot faster, by not lingering on the small, growing plot threads, but it also tends to give the book the infamous disjointed feel that it is known for.

Another subject I'd like to discuss, is the relevance of the Batman vs Superman conflict. Here we have a symbolic representation of righteous civilians rebelling against the all-powerful authoritarians. Batman has started to change things, stirring hope and trouble in equal measures. Superman, with his extraordinary gifts is morally obligated, or so he thinks, to help out or aid anyone who is in charge. Batman with HIS history and upbringing is obligated to provide truth and justice no matter what the cost. This is a rather ironic turn of events in that Superman himself is often thought to embody "Truth, Justice and the American Way." Superman has chosen to submit to the tyranny of other men so long as it brings peace. Batman has chosen to defy any and all in positions of power to truly serve justice. A friend of mine once told me a very interesting analogy: Superman is the embodiment of how we, Americans, see ourselves; Batman is the embodiment of how other nations see us. 

In short, the dichotomy of the Batman/Superman relationship was a very interesting one to explore, because of the very political and psychological  implications it has.