Eli Katz wrote:It's a comic book; thus, you need to consider how the style of the art affects and shapes the tone of the story. That's what I meant. I emphasized the dead guy not because it is the only example of zany art in the preview, but rather because it is so clearly on the zany side that no one could misinterpret the intent. But the way Robin sits in his seat, his pouty expressions, and the overall style of the illustrations suggest that little in the book should be taken too seriously.
Frankly, DC is good nowadays at getting creators who aren't that good for the projects they're undertaking. Some artists in particular can't properly express all the parts of a story. As someone mentioned somewhere about Jim Lee and his Justice League run, he does "Big and Loud Action!" well enough, but quiet moments just aren't his bag, man. I'd say this Batman, Inc. artist, Chris Burnham, can't do un-cartoony characters. Frankly, his art -- particularly Damien -- looks halfway towards that of Grant's old pal Frank Quitely, whose characters always look constipated. Talk about not being able to take someone's art seriously! But we ARE supposed to take Quitely-drawn stories seriously, in spite of everyone needing to drop a load ASAP. And the same goes in this story, when things aren't "darkly comical".
So basically, I'm still not convinced by the "Zany art!" excuse.
That said, I think you can have stories that have both absurd and realistic elements in them.
But not in THIS case, apparently.
Everything in THIS particular story MUST be one big howl-inducing joke from start to finish, because of the art.