Batman is lying in a coffin in a 1950s Gotham City and all the people who knew him, friends and fiends come to pay their respects. Two of those tell their story about how they were responsible for his death. First is Catwoman and her tale of how she tied up an injured Batman and let him died. Second, there’s the Alfred Pennyworth and his story of how he created all the villains that made up Batman’s rogue gallery.

Coming away from the incomprehensible Batman must dies storyline with Grant Morrison, I have to admit that Gaiman’s story is quite a plausible follow up and fits in with what when on before. What he explores make for good alternative stories and interpretation of Batman’s history. But just like Morrison’s stories before, many readers will just not understand what is happening. It seems that Batman has now gone in constructivist storytelling, but forgot to drag the rest of the DC Universe and readers with him. I like what Gaiman is doing here, but I’m not sure how it fits overall with everything else. But just like Final Crisis and Morrison’s run, does it matter? Why can’t a reader learn to read Batman differently after seventy years of reading stories about the character penned in a straightforward fashion?

I could not recognize Andy Kubert’s work here. To tell the truth, I never know which one of which – between Andy and brother Adam, I’m dealing with. I like his work on this issue and wonder how much the inkers are responsible for me finally liking something drawn by someone named Kubert, whose first name is not Joe.