The Dark Knight Returns is great because it provides a grand and epic finale to a character that had never had one, never even countenanced one before.

A lot of people will say that Batman was already pretty dark in the 70s and early 80s with Denny O'Neil's work, but still... Miller's Batman was just so completely different from anything else you'd find on shelves. That by itself was groundbreaking. The comic felt adult in a way that was completely alien to a lot of readers and you could argue helped the medium mature. Of course, you could also see it as an impetus for all the terrible grimdark comics we got in the 90s. There were a lot of unfortunate consequences of the success of DKR and Watchmen. But the works themselves endure.

The story is about a world that has gone out of control, sinking into a cesspool that Miller colorfully illustrates with his TV talking heads. Miller goes after both the right and the left, gleefully skewering Reagan while at the same time mocking the decadent and lily-livered liberals (Dr Wolper, the guy who goes "We must patiently realign their--excuse me? No, I'd never live in the city."). The richness and vivid landscape he crafts is wholly encapsulating and gives a dimension to the comic that other Batman comics never went near. It's not some faraway pretend land named Gotham, but a slice of life in 1985. You're living and breathing it, and bringing Batman into this reality makes his presence that much more fascinating and impactful.

With Batman, Miller shows his outrage at this new and disturbing environment. You have to remember, back in 85... New York was a horrible shitshow rife with crime. This was all before Giuliani came and cleaned it up. Miller himself was robbed a couple of times, if I recall. So he certainly had a specific perspective on the issues in the city. This obviously got transferred to the comic, where people are murdered with bombs placed in their purses by young street punks with their own alien lingo, and news anchors report on it with complete apathy. It was a sense of... we have to fight back, we have to retake the city for decent people. That's the message, and it's all very well conveyed in the comic. It's very much the same sentiment that made the original "Dirty Harry" such a success when it was released. I mean... the appalling conditions in NYC made a vigilante like Bernhard Goetz a hero of everyday folk. Batman becomes the perfect harbinger of this, since he himself was the victim of a senseless urban crime. Like Goetz, Batman took matters into his own hands and imposed his will to create change ("they showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to").

And inevitably, it all goes back to Batman. Did Batman's disappearance, his tragic retirement after Jason Todd's death, bring about this slow and gradual decay and lack of morality? We're never explicitly told, but perhaps his shining symbol of justice, now gone, did have something to do with it. The heroes leave as well, except for Superman. Where did it all go wrong? It sketches out a history of Batman that's tantalizing but yet always just out of reach. He modifies his Batmobile sometime in the past, alluding to some riot that we'll never see. How did that happen? What other changes took place? It's the same reason why people love the reference to the "Tannhauser Gate" in Bladerunner. It's a larger world, a larger history that lives on in our imagination.

Most importantly, DKR gives us one of those fitting endings that you would sometimes see in Westerns. The old legendary cowboy putting on his old worn out boots, his spurs for one last showdown. One last adventure. One final stand to save the townspeople. I mean hell, Miller even puts Batman on horseback in one part of the book. That's not just a random coincidence. He's actively portraying Batman as that tired, faded Western hero. Ragnarok was more fully realized in Ross and Waid's Kingdom Come, but there is some of the same notion here. When Batman finally returns, that first night, the very thunder in the angry night ("Like the wrath of God it's headed for Gotham...") announces his presence. It's the stuff of myth and tall tales, brought to the pages of an American comic. The old man, showing the new kids how it's supposed to be done. Invoking the glories of the past and all the nostalgia that accompanies that. It's terrifically satisfying for any fan of Batman.

Of course, his reappearance brings back his villains as well. This is now a common theme in Batman lore, the notion that he himself creates and encourages the insanity of his Arkham rogues gallery. Well, where did that come from? I think it's mainly from DKR. You see the connection between Batman's return and how Two Face and The Joker react and it's obvious... they need each other. Two-Face can't stay away from his darker inner self. The Joker is nothing without Batman to play with. Frank Miller even goes so far as to imply a deep-seated homosexual obsession in the Joker which other writers have mostly dropped.

The final showdown with the Joker is... utterly magnificent. If Miller had dropped the ball here, it would've been a huge disappointment. He's been building it up for the last two issues, after all. But it doesn't... it gives just the right mix of anger, grim determination, and understanding that you would expect from two foes that have fought a lifetime of comic issues. Batman still can't break his vow, because then the Joker would win. The Joker goes and does it for him, just to spite him. One final joke.

Superman is a symbol of the authoritarian regime that has taken over in this future. Frank Miller obviously saw the decadence and general apathy of the 80s as a sign that people just didn't care anymore. They were willing to throw away their ideals and rebellious spirit of the 60s in order to gain more wealth and stability in the 80s. The status quo was what was now valued. And what could be more of a symbol of the status quo than Superman? Obviously, Superman had not always been that, as he had in fact gone after corrupt politicians and exploitative businessmen in the Depression era. But that had gone away by the time of TDKR, and Superman was projected as standing for The American Way. In 85, that American Way was Reagan, and so... yeah, Superman was the willing puppet of that presidency.

So why the fight? Well, beyond Superman acting on behalf of a government now run by polls... it's the truth that there's always been tension between the two. They're very much opposites in ideals. Superman stands for bright, shiny optimism and trust. Batman stands for dark angry justice and punishment. One is a God blessed with limitless power. The other is a man at the peak of human achievement. There's always been that imbalance. And Miller was the first to see that this would make for a dramatic battle. The man against the superman. Brawn versus intelligence. You couldn't have a greater contrast.

Another key aspect that was groundbreaking was Miller's composition. It's very cinematic and feels more like what you'd see in a movie than most other comics at the time. That flashback shot of Mrs. Wayne's pearl necklace breaking apart, for example... that slow dreamlike sequence was also captured in Burton's 1989 movie, but Miller did it first here. It's very, very effective comic book language that modern comics use all the time, but they all got it from Miller.

It's all there in the work, rich and bountiful, and well worth the effort.