#and to some extent son of the demon (which I guess o'neil really didn't like) although morrison later tried to hybridize them

[cantsayidont]

December 1992. I've never quite made up my mind about this graphic novel, originally released as a slim, very expensive hardcover, and intended as the definitive origin of Ra's al Ghul. Here are some pros and cons:

It's the best Batman story Denny O'Neil ever wrote, at least from the standpoint of execution. A lot of O'Neil's classic Batman stories were written as inventory stories, and feel like it; were it not for Neal Adams' art on some of them, they would not be nearly as highly regarded as they now are, and some are real stinkers. In construction, theme, characterization, and mood, this might be his most accomplished comics work.

It's appalling Orientalist hokum, even for O'Neil. In the interests of avoiding any possible politicization of Ra's al Ghul (who is fundamentally an Arab version of Fu Manchu, much as O'Neil and Adams tried to deny it), his origin is set in a fantasy Arabian kingdom that no longer exists and has no sense of actual place or period — lazy, non-confrontational worldbuilding for white readers who consider 1,001 Nights too gritty and realistic.

I've never liked Norm Breyfogle's art, so having him draw this important story was not a plus. (I know some people love Breyfogle's work, it's fine, a matter of taste, don't @ me.)

It has some of Breyfogle's best pencils, but the painted color was a mistake. Painted comics were briefly "in" around this time, and I guess it was a way to add a sense of occasion, but it tends to undermine the penciled art, which is admittedly quite good.

I'm not convinced Ra's al Ghul needed — or benefited from having — a real origin. O'Neil does try to hedge this in the text by presenting the origin as the account of a now-dead former associate, the veracity of which would be nigh-impossible to verify, but as with the Joker's origin in THE KILLING JOKE, once it was out there, it was going to be treated as canonical unless someone made an active effort to debunk it. I tend to think a character like Ra's al Ghul works better if Bruce is never quite sure how much is real and how much is smoke and mirrors, which was certainly the vibe in O'Neil's earlier Ra's stories. I always assumed that one of the reasons O'Neil was so antipathetic to Ra's stories he didn't write was that they were too literal, so I dunno.

It's better than its immediate predecessors, SON OF THE DEMON (which has lovely Jerry Bingham art for a frustrating story) and BRIDE OF THE DEMON (which has no virtues I can think of), but every time I look at this book, all I can do is sigh and click my teeth.