Flash 134: how to make it fit?
Jacob T. Levy
Back before it became clear that DC just wasn't trying very hard
to keep its continuity straight from week to week (much less from
decade to decade), back when Marvel gave out no-prizes, fans tried
to come up with continuity patches. Of course, fan Roy Thomas
went on to become the all-time champion of this and we all know
how respectfully DC treats his work, but even so...
Let's fix it! What's the minimum necessary change for Flash 134
and Suicide Squad (during and after the Doom Patrol crossover) to be
compatible? If someone at DC were to actually care enough to describe
the post-ZH continuity of the Thinker and the thinking cap, what
should it look like?
Problems:
1) The original Thinker died.
2) The thinking cap was used by Rick Flag, adapted by Thinker II,
used by Amanada Waller, and destroyed by Amanda Waller.
3) It's important to the development of Flag's character that
he was the only Squad survivor of the mission in Nicaragua, so
we can't say that the Thinker survived. It's important to the
rest of Suicide Squad that the cap be in Squad possession, so we
can't just substitute a generic MIA Golden Age villain for the Thinker.
Minimum necessary changes:
Either there have to have been two thinking caps, or we have to
account for the one cap being destroyed by Waller, recreated, and
snuck into Johnny Thunder's apartment. I think it's a smaller change
to say that there were two of them; let the Thinker have created a
backup.
Then we can choose among a) Thinker I being resurrected off-camera
at some unknown time (probably not the most elegant of explanations,
especially since his death involved some dismemberment); b) the Thinker
in the SS/DP crossover having secretly been a fraud, someone who
managed to persuade the government that he really was the Thinker
in order to get on a Squad mission and get early release (compatible
with the Thinker's complaints in the one-shot that he was old and
wanted to retire and be free); or c) the Thinker in the one-shot
was known not to be the real Thinker, who had escaped from prison at
some point, leaving one of his caps in government custody. Instead.
he was some other villain or criminal who was offered the chance to
wear the cap on a Squad mission in order to gain his freedom, just
because the Squad had access to the cap and thought they needed the
power.
Either (b) or (c) work without too much muss or fuss, I think.
Secretly or openly, the person munched by the Weasel was a stand-in
for the man we saw lying in bed in Flash 134.
yes?
Jacob T. Levy
The Phantom Stranger:
http://www.princeton.edu/~jtlevy/stranger.html
David Stepp
On 12 Jan 1998, PatDOneill wrote:
> Y'know I think it's fascinating that, on the same newsgroup that castigates
> John Byrne for moving the Thinker's origin from 50 years ago to 57 years ago,
> we have posts like this one, that are willing to explain away Grant Morrison's
> complete ignoring of events published less than a decade ago.
>
> Sauce for the goose, people.
We must be beating Pat too hard. He's getting addled.
1) Byrne screwed up the Fiddler's origin. As a side note, Byrne also
screwed up the Thinker, now that you mention it. 1) He's off 1 year on the
Thinker and 2) He didn't have the mechanical thinking cap in 1942 or for
several year thereafter. Before that, he was a crimeboss without special
powers. There were, if you'll recall the previous lecture, very few
super-villians during the war years.
2) If you had been paying attention and gathering info before you posted
(a new habit for yourself for the new year) you would have noticed that 1)
of all the retcons Jake listed, only one is actually a retcon. The rest is
intact. Morrison didn't use the upgraded version of the Thinking Cap in
his story, instead using the later one so the Suicide Squad storyline is
unchanged and 2) most of the readers here have commented to varying
degrees of dissatisfaction with Morrison's use of the Thinker. Those
advocating tolerance of the retcon are doing so in the time honored "no
body, no death" technique, a well-described plot device in comics for
decades. Taken in that light, the magnitude of Morrison's retcon is
trivial compared to Byrne's.
3) Retcons are judged on sizes and in context. An equation for you:
Good plot + good dialogue + Good Continuity = Perfect
Also, you can break down the good continuity variable as:
(Size of Continuity Element 1 + Size of Continuity Element 2 + ...)
For the sake of argument, let us say each of the 3 variables is scored
on a scale of 1 to 10. In Morrison's case, he score a 10 on plot and a 10
on dialogue and a 9 on continuity. He got much more continuity right than
he got wrong. Score for Flash #134 = 29 out of 30. In Byrne's cas, there
was no plot. It was a scam to get us to pick up Wonder Woman. He gets a 3
on plot. The Dialogue was unmemorable. I'll be generous and give him a 5.
He screwed up every element of continuity he introduced into the story. He
gets a 0. Total score for Speed Force #1 = 8. Since that story was the
reason I bought it, I paid $5 for an 8. It my view, it sucks to pay $5 for
an 8. If you reach back into the dim recesses of your memory, you will
recall that Byrne was castigated #1) for bad continuity, #2) for using the
story to try to suck us into Wonder Woman and #3) for blowing off
continuity after rattling on on AOL for weeks about how he was the only
one that respected it.
Have faith, Morrison may yet do major retcons and get blasted. Wait til we
see what Robinson does to the Ultra-Humanite.
D.
David Crowe
Jacob T. Levy <jtl...@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
: Back before it became clear that DC just wasn't trying very hard
: Minimum necessary changes:
The "Two caps" theory works fine. Clearly the Thinker has improved on his
helmet design over the years. The early one looked like a colander with
diodes on it, and not at all like the one he wore in the DP/SS special.
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe http://www.primenet.com/~jetman
You only read the manual when there's something you can't figure out. -Skuld
PatDOneill
Y'know I think it's fascinating that, on the same newsgroup that castigates
John Byrne for moving the Thinker's origin from 50 years ago to 57 years ago,
we have posts like this one, that are willing to explain away Grant Morrison's
complete ignoring of events published less than a decade ago.
Sauce for the goose, people.
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not
represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
Dwight Williams
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) writes:
> Y'know I think it's fascinating that, on the same newsgroup that castigates
> John Byrne for moving the Thinker's origin from 50 years ago to 57 years ago,
> we have posts like this one, that are willing to explain away Grant Morrison's
> complete ignoring of events published less than a decade ago.
>
> Sauce for the goose, people.
Begging your pardon, but I fail to see the point of the hypocrisy accusation.
And also, you no doubt meant to refer to the *Fiddler* incident in _Speed
Force_ # 1, allegedly pushing Isaac Bowin's debut as a supervillain back from
1947(TYG, or anyone else, could reconfirm my memory on this one?) to 1942.
*He* was the one whose backstory was fiddled with, pun intended.
And I *do* recall being the first to raise the concern over the GA Thinker
here(at least by the Usenet posting records of NCF). It just seemed -- and
still seems -- odd to me that Mr. Morrison would be so careless in these
matters, as compared to other writers. Especially since the issue
ignored/missed in the research here was co-written by his editor, of all
people.
Please trying to interpret "getting the facts straight" as "tying the
writers' hands", will you?
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Edward Mathews
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: Y'know I think it's fascinating that, on the same newsgroup that castigates
: John Byrne for moving the Thinker's origin from 50 years ago to 57 years ago,
: we have posts like this one, that are willing to explain away Grant Morrison's
: complete ignoring of events published less than a decade ago.
:
: Sauce for the goose, people.
It was the Fiddler, Pat. And some of us do have problems with Morrison.
I still hate the invalidation of the psycholgical weakness to fire that
Martian Manhunter has. Of course, I like John Byrne and Grant Morrison.
I'm more pissed that DC can't come up with a definative reference book for
these writers and editors so that at least they are all on the same page,
if you will.
Ed (Who's Who '99?) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
BHMarks
On 12 Jan 1998, PatDOneill wrote:
> Y'know I think it's fascinating that, on the same newsgroup that castigates
> John Byrne for moving the Thinker's origin from 50 years ago to 57 years ago,
> we have posts like this one, that are willing to explain away Grant
Morrison's
> complete ignoring of events published less than a decade ago.
>
> Sauce for the goose, people.
This is really bizarre. Did Pat actually miss all the earlier posts in this
thread in which continuity fans pointed out, over and over, that at last count
the Thinker was *dead*, and that Moore should have accounted for that in his
story? Then, after that, we had the usual "but it doesn't matter/of course it
does!" back-and-forth argument, almost *identical* to the one we had with Byrne
and the Fiddler.
Yes, it seems to be true that most people (not all) *liked* Moore's story
better than they like Byrne's. But that didn't stop him from getting a great
deal of criticism for the continuity error.
*THEN* someone said, well, givien a chance, how would you rectify it? And
there's been a few suggestions. But they came *after* many people's
suggestions of what Moore should have done *in the story* to get it right in
the first place.
By the way, in the Byrne/Fiddler thread, one or two people *did* post
explanations for the problem, mainly involving time travel. (In point of
technical fact, it is harder to reconcile, within a continuity, an origin date
moved earlier than a character death reversed, due to long comic-book
precedent. But this didn't stop people from trying in *both* cases.)
Pat, are you *so* upset that many people like Moore's writing that you can't
even tell when he's being *criticized*? I know it would require you to modify
your belief that "the hivemind worships Moore like a god", but try actually
reading the threads.
As ever,
Bennet
BHMarks
IN MY PREVIOUS POST:
I wrote "Moore", meant "Morrison." The SWAMP THING discussion overflowed on
me.
This is why I never jumped on Robinson for writing "Jay Garrett". Been There,
Done That.
Fortunately this error has a limited "ripple effect" . . . .
As ever,
Bennet
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
BHMarks (bhm...@aol.com) wrote:
: IN MY PREVIOUS POST:
Not to mention how it's screwed up racdu continuity, Bennett, you bastard!
:)
- Elayne
--
"It's rather disconcerting to realize that someone you assumed was a
rational being turns out to be--well--living a portion of his life on
Earth 3." -- Nancy Collins
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>
> BHMarks (bhm...@aol.com) wrote:
> : IN MY PREVIOUS POST:
>
> : I wrote "Moore", meant "Morrison." The SWAMP THING discussion overflowed on
> : me.
>
> : This is why I never jumped on Robinson for writing "Jay Garrett". Been There,
> : Done That.
>
> : Fortunately this error has a limited "ripple effect" . . . .
>
> Not to mention how it's screwed up racdu continuity, Bennett, you bastard!
> :)
I blame his editor.
--
Yes, I've finally resorted to a Spam block.
To respond, remove the letters BLOCK from my address.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Rich.
BHMarks
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) said:
>Not to mention how it's screwed up racdu continuity, >Bennett, you bastard!
One "t" in "Bennet", Spell Queen!
And it was only in my second (and much underappreciated) miniseries that my
parents weren't married. Previously they were unmentioned; and later they were
retconned into having a wedding performed "by a rabbi who happened to be on the
ship." His name is sometimes given as Swartzberg and sometimes as SwartzBECK
(see STARMAN #341, "Twas The Night Before Hannukah...".)
:-)
Bennet
Sean Med
"Jacob T. Levy" <jtl...@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Let's fix it! What's the minimum necessary change for Flash 134
>and Suicide Squad (during and after the Doom Patrol crossover) to be
>compatible?
Going outside and getting some fresh air?
Just kidding. Sort of.
Sean Medlock
http://bounce.to/tadnsean
Sean Med
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>Y'know I think it's fascinating that, on the same newsgroup that castigates
>John Byrne for moving the Thinker's origin from 50 years ago to 57 years ago,
>we have posts like this one, that are willing to explain away Grant
>Morrison's
>complete ignoring of events published less than a decade ago.
Whereas I think it's fascinating that you said it was simply
terrible for Grant Morrison to introduce an angel into the
JLA (some silly garbage about it violating "hard
psuedoscience"), but it seems to be okay for Peter David
to turn Supergirl into an angel. Which is quite a coincidence,
considering that you consistently blast anything and
everything Morrison does and defend anything David
does, seemingly without regard to merit. Mmmm, sauce.
Oh no. I've just replied to Pat, haven't I? Sorry, everybody.
Sean Medlock
http://bounce.to/tadnsean
PatDOneill
>Whereas I think it's fascinating that you said it was simply
>terrible for Grant Morrison to introduce an angel into the
>JLA (some silly garbage about it violating "hard
>psuedoscience"), but it seems to be okay for Peter David
>to turn Supergirl into an angel. Which is quite a coincidence,
>considering that you consistently blast anything and
>everything Morrison does and defend anything David
>does, seemingly without regard to merit. Mmmm, sauce.
>
>Oh no. I've just replied to Pat, haven't I? Sorry, everybody.
>
Two different series, two different attitudes toward material.
JLA has a 30-year tradition of "hard psuedoscience" as the mainstay of its
storytelling. SUPERGIRL has existed for less than two years, all handled by the
same author, who has had a spiritual wellspring to the stories from the
beginning.
David W. Stepp
In article <19980119212...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> Two different series, two different attitudes toward material.
>
> JLA has a 30-year tradition of "hard psuedoscience" as the mainstay of its
> storytelling. SUPERGIRL has existed for less than two years, all handled
by the
> same author, who has had a spiritual wellspring to the stories from the
> beginning.
JLA as a concept has a 30 year history. Supergirl as a concept has a 30
year history.
JLA as a series under the current author has a 1 year history.
Supergirl as a series under the current author has a 1 year history.
You must make the appropriate comparison Pat or we will be forced to
add associational disorders to your list of dysfunctions.
D.
MBRADY669
>>Whereas I think it's fascinating that you said it was simply
>>terrible for Grant Morrison to introduce an angel into the
>>JLA (some silly garbage about it violating "hard
>>psuedoscience"), but it seems to be okay for Peter David
>>to turn Supergirl into an angel. Which is quite a coincidence,
>>considering that you consistently blast anything and
>>everything Morrison does and defend anything David
>>does, seemingly without regard to merit. Mmmm, sauce.
>>
>>Oh no. I've just replied to Pat, haven't I? Sorry, everybody.
>>
>
>
>
>JLA has a 30-year tradition of "hard psuedoscience" as the mainstay of its
>storytelling. SUPERGIRL has existed for less than two years, all handled by
>the
>same author, who has had a spiritual wellspring to the stories from the
>beginning.
>
>
yeah, but aren't they taking place in the same "universe?" rules don't apply
because a writer is on a religion jag for a couple of years? 'Sides, what
about Dr. Fate, Phantom Stranger, Spectre, et al showing up in the JLA? what
side of "hard pseudoscience" do they fall on?
Matt
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>JLA has a 30-year tradition of "hard psuedoscience" as the mainstay of its
>storytelling. SUPERGIRL has existed for less than two years
If JLA has a 30-year tradition of *anything*, then so does Supergirl. If PAD's
SUPERGIRL is only two years old, than Morrison's JLA is about 1 year old.
Let's not compare the ages of apples and oranges.
Previoulsy, Supergirl (both Kara and Mae) has always had a "hard pseudoscience"
background with respect to her origin and most other story aspects. You can,
of course, point to Comet (centaur turned horse by Circe) but, as you've
explained away the JLA's Three Demons, Felix Faust, and Zatanna as being
"essentially hard pseudoscience", I can't see Comet as being any different. I
bet you can point to more seemingly supernatural elements in the JLA's 30-year
history than in Supergirl's.
And weren't you always the one arguing (when you were railing against
continuity) that "it's important to let writers express their new take on a
character" and "anything that gets in the way of a writer telling the story he
wants to tell is rubbish"? Why doesn't this apply to Morrison? Because he's
the devil incarnate?
Just for reference: I have no objection to PAD's use of the supernatural in
SUPERGIRL, even though the stories definitely do not mesh in tone with her
earlier incarnations. I quite like the book. And I have no objections to
Morrison's use of the supernatural in JLA, which I find completely consistent
with the 30-year JLA history of "well, mainly we're into aliens and mad
scientists, but every now and then we throw in a demon, a goddess, or a
sorceror." What's wrong with that?
As ever,
Bennet
Green Bay Elmos
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
> JLA has a 30-year tradition of "hard psuedoscience" as the mainstay of its
> storytelling.
Except for, y'know, the Demons Three, Felix Faust, the Fiend with Five
Faces, Starbreaker, the Phantom Stranger, etc.
--
"Nothing spells lovin' like marrying your cousin."--Al Bundy
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Sean Med
>JLA has a 30-year tradition of "hard psuedoscience" as the mainstay of its
>the
>same author, who has had a spiritual wellspring to the stories from the
>beginning.
"Hard psuedoscience"! LOL!
Whatever you say, Pat.
Sean Medlock
http://bounce.to/tadnsean
Drew Zeigler
> Two different series, two different attitudes toward material.
>
> JLA has a 30-year tradition of "hard psuedoscience" as the mainstay of its
> storytelling. SUPERGIRL has existed for less than two years, all handled
by >the
> same author, who has had a spiritual wellspring to the stories from the
> beginning.
Um, are you sure you've read the same Justice League books printed by DC
that I have? Giant starfish, aliens that cause superheros to grow roots,
costumes that come to life, the demons three, etc etc. Boy, you're
right. Next to all that, an angel looks darn loony.
--
Drew Zeigler
dzei...@ix.netcom.com
mekt-...@lsh.org
de...@aol.com
1:1 rtaf
Daydreams
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> >And I have no objections to
> >Morrison's use of the supernatural in JLA, which I find completely consistent
> >with the 30-year JLA history of "well, mainly we're into aliens and mad
> >scientists, but every now and then we throw in a demon, a goddess, or a
> >sorceror." What's wrong with that?
> >
> >
>
> element of Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief.
>
> Let's try this the other way: Suppose someone were writing an historical novel
> about the life of, oh, Joan of Arc--one that treated her visions as legitimate
> religious experiences--and then threw in an English knight as a villian, one
> who had superpowers as a result of contact with an alien spaceship?
>
> It would be more than a little jarring, wouldn't it? Wouldn't seem to fit with
> the rest of Joan's world, right?
>
> THAT is how I feel about Zauriel et al in the JLA.
And that is how I feel about a blob of sentient protoplasm from an
extradimensional universe suddenly becoming an angel of the Lord.
Dave Haddy
Daydreams Comics
http://www.avalon.net/~daydream
PatDOneill
>yeah, but aren't they taking place in the same "universe?" rules don't apply
>because a writer is on a religion jag for a couple of years? 'Sides, what
>about Dr. Fate, Phantom Stranger, Spectre, et al showing up in the JLA? what
>side of "hard pseudoscience" do they fall on?
You're falling into the "consistent universe" fallacy--which would prevent any
writer from introducing new elements when creating a new title.
But longstanding titles have an overall tone and feeling. The JLA's tone has
never been "religious"--the mystical material used in JLA has traditionally
been of the comic-book variety: demons from other dimensions, magic displayed
as bolts of lightning or blasts of energy. Angels and heaven don't fit.
OTOH, SUPERGIRL has included the concepts of heaven and hell since the first
issue.
PatDOneill
>And I have no objections to
>Morrison's use of the supernatural in JLA, which I find completely consistent
>with the 30-year JLA history of "well, mainly we're into aliens and mad
>scientists, but every now and then we throw in a demon, a goddess, or a
>sorceror." What's wrong with that?
>
>
Because an angel isn't "a demon, a goddess, or a sorceror." It's an integral
element of Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief.
Let's try this the other way: Suppose someone were writing an historical novel
about the life of, oh, Joan of Arc--one that treated her visions as legitimate
religious experiences--and then threw in an English knight as a villian, one
who had superpowers as a result of contact with an alien spaceship?
It would be more than a little jarring, wouldn't it? Wouldn't seem to fit with
the rest of Joan's world, right?
THAT is how I feel about Zauriel et al in the JLA.
David W. Stepp
In article <19980120115...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> Let's try this the other way: Suppose someone were writing an historical novel
> about the life of, oh, Joan of Arc--one that treated her visions as legitimate
> religious experiences--and then threw in an English knight as a villian, one
> who had superpowers as a result of contact with an alien spaceship?
>
> It would be more than a little jarring, wouldn't it? Wouldn't seem to fit with
> the rest of Joan's world, right?
>
> THAT is how I feel about Zauriel et al in the JLA.
That's the way the rest of us feel when dead villians show up at dinner
parties, people forget their origins and names of things are not the names
of the things we remember. It's a little jarring and doesn't fit in with
the Flash's/Superman's/Batman's world, right? Isn't it nice to be like us?
D.
,
JohannaLD
From: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
>It would be more than a little jarring, wouldn't it? Wouldn't seem to fit
>withthe rest of Joan's world, right?
>THAT is how I feel about Zauriel et al in the JLA.
And how others feel about Supergirl as an angel. You can't have it both
ways.
Johanna
Bryant Durrell
In article <19980120115...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>yeah, but aren't they taking place in the same "universe?" rules don't apply
>>because a writer is on a religion jag for a couple of years? 'Sides, what
>>about Dr. Fate, Phantom Stranger, Spectre, et al showing up in the JLA? what
>>side of "hard pseudoscience" do they fall on?
>
>You're falling into the "consistent universe" fallacy--which would prevent any
>writer from introducing new elements when creating a new title.
>
>But longstanding titles have an overall tone and feeling. The JLA's tone has
>never been "religious"--the mystical material used in JLA has traditionally
>been of the comic-book variety: demons from other dimensions, magic displayed
>as bolts of lightning or blasts of energy. Angels and heaven don't fit.
It's probably worth noting that Zauriel has a distinctly scientific
bent -- in JLA: Paradise Lost, his base uses angelic technology and
science and so forth.
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"Never lose your sense of the superficial." -- Lord Northcliffe
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> JLA has a 30-year tradition of "hard psuedoscience" as the mainstay of its
> storytelling. SUPERGIRL has existed for less than two years, all handled by the
> same author, who has had a spiritual wellspring to the stories from the
> beginning.
You do see how easily this position can be reversed, right?
Kevin J. Maroney
mor...@riph5.rice.edu (Green Bay Elmos) wrote:
>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>> JLA has a 30-year tradition of "hard psuedoscience" as the mainstay of its
>> storytelling.
>
>Except for, y'know, the Demons Three, Felix Faust, the Fiend with Five
>Faces, Starbreaker, the Phantom Stranger, etc.
Zatanna, the New Gods, etc., etc.
(Come on in! The dogpile's fine!)
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"There is a better world. There has to be."--Kay Challis
Elmo System V
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
> But longstanding titles have an overall tone and feeling. The JLA's tone has
> never been "religious"--the mystical material used in JLA has traditionally
> been of the comic-book variety: demons from other dimensions, magic displayed
> as bolts of lightning or blasts of energy. Angels and heaven don't fit.
The bell, book, and wheel spell used to resurrect the Demons Three is not
only a complete, traditional-style spell, it has its roots in the Catholic
ritual for exorcism.
--
"The Truth Is Out There, but it doesn't make any sense."--Jason Modisette,
on the X-Files Fat-Sucking Vampire
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
PatDOneill
>>THAT is how I feel about Zauriel et al in the JLA.
>
>And how others feel about Supergirl as an angel. You can't have it both
>ways.
>
>
I'm not trying to have it both ways. As a title, SUPERGIRL has but two years of
history, all under the same writer, who has worked the same themes from the
beginning.
JLA has a nearly 40-year history, in which religion has never played a part.
Jacob T. Levy
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>Y'know I think it's fascinating that, on the same newsgroup that
castigates
>John Byrne for moving the Thinker's origin from 50 years ago to 57
years ago,
>we have posts like this one, that are willing to explain away Grant
>Morrison's
>complete ignoring of events published less than a decade ago.
"Explain away" =/= "excuse."
Morrison screwed up. The violation of continuity diminished my
enjoyment of an otherwise wonderful story.
Morrison has screwed up before. The Martian retcon in JLA 1-4
diminished my enjoyment of a story I already wasn't enjoying very much,
almost pushing me off the title. (It's improved.)
Byrne's Fiddler screw-up was of the latter kind: sloppy research in the
service of a poor story.
Because I like continuity, and I like for all the stories which I like
to hang together, I'm willing to exert a little effort to imagine
continuity patches for screw-ups in good stories. As someone who does
this for fun and not for a living, I feel no need to exert the same
effort on behalf of screw-ups in lame stories. That's not the same
as thinking that one of them was a screw-up and the other wasn't.
Jacob T. Levy
The Phantom Stranger:
http://www.princeton.edu/~jtlevy/stranger.html
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said
>You're falling into the "consistent universe" fallacy--which would prevent any
>writer from introducing new elements when creating a new title.
(a) a consistent universe does not prevent "any writer" from introducing new
elements, and writers with a commitment to continuity somehow manage to
introduce new elements all the time. They just happen to be consistent with
previous elements. Consistent does not mean "old", "the same as", etc.
(b) your restriction on writers changing the tone of a comic seems more of a
rrestriction than not allowing them to change "details". Whatever happened to
"letting the writer have a new take on the character"? Can a new take not
include a new tone?
>But longstanding titles have an overall tone and feeling. The JLA's tone has
>never been "religious"--the mystical material used in JLA has traditionally
>been of the comic-book variety: demons from other dimensions, magic displayed
>as bolts of lightning or blasts of energy. Angels and heaven don't fit.
That's your opinion.
Actually, the high-tech beat-'em-up angels in JLA have been criticized
precisely for being in the "comic-book tradtion".
>OTOH, SUPERGIRL has included the concepts of heaven and hell since the first
>issue.
If SUPERGIRL has included concepts of heaven and hell since the first issue,
then JLA has included angles and heaven since - what? - the 6th issue? You're
holding JLA to a 30-year tradition (based on a distinction you're sure of but
most people can't see), and pretending Supergirl was invented with PAD's first
issue. If the JLA has been around for 30 years, so has she.
As far as I can tell, Pat, you're as obsessive about continuity and consistency
as anyone I've ever met. it's just (a) it's your own private consistency, and
(b) your tough standards only apply to Morrison and a few other devils.
As ever,
Bennet
Edward Mathews
JohannaLD (joha...@aol.com) wrote:
: From: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
:
: >It would be more than a little jarring, wouldn't it? Wouldn't seem to fit
: >withthe rest of Joan's world, right?
:
: And how others feel about Supergirl as an angel. You can't have it both
: ways.
I like the concept of Zauriel and Supergirl as an angel.
Ed (probably showing those Jesuit roots again) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>I'm not trying to have it both ways. As a title, SUPERGIRL has but two years
of
>history, all under the same writer, who has worked the same themes from the
>beginning.
>JLA has a nearly 40-year history, in which religion has never played a part.
Pat, what is this *nonsense*? Why is it that the JLA's "40-year history"
counts, but Supergirl's 30-year history (including headlining her own series
various times) - all without "religion" - doesn't count? Man, are you trying
to have it both ways!
As ever,
Bennet
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>But longstanding titles have an overall tone and feeling. The JLA's tone has
>never been "religious"--the mystical material used in JLA has traditionally
>been of the comic-book variety: demons from other dimensions, magic displayed
>as bolts of lightning or blasts of energy. Angels and heaven don't fit.
>Because an angel isn't "a demon, a goddess, or a sorceror." It's an integral
>element of Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief.
Just for the sake of comparison, I'd like to add some (approximate) quotes from
the only person I *know* Pat agrees with, namely Pat:
"A comic has to be a complete reading experience. Anything that happened 50,
20, or even 3 years ago is irrelevant. [If that's jarring to the long-term
reader, then] to hell with the long-term reader! A new writer on a series gets
to start fresh; he can use what parts of the history he wants, and ignore the
rest. You have to let new writers come in with new visions. Anything that
gets in the way of a writer writing the story he wants to write is useless!
[And if you can't see that] you don't know the difference between fantasy and
reality, and you're the reason the comics industry is going down the tubes."
In light of those comments - hurled with such contempt at some posters on this
group - Pat's complaint that Morrison is "ruining" his JLA stories because of
some old-time tradition is - in Pat's word - "rubbish."
In any case, Pat, your ability - and apparent need - to group Felix Faust, the
Three Demons, and Zantanna under the umbrella of "hard pseudoscience" is so
idiosyncratic that it's hard to know how to talk about it. Suffice to say that
I have never talked to any other comic fan who did this. Or felt the need to.
DC has had both science fiction and magic since its earliest days (cf. the
Spectre) and, although the Silver Age JLA was more influenced by Sputnik and
therefore tilted more towards technology, it still had magic and never
indicated otherwise. (Your later claim that you're not talking about "magic"
but "religion" is, of course, just moving the bar.)
In addition, your unwillingnes to *extend* this umbrella to include angels -
angels with big tech-looking ships, futuristic armor, and energy blasts -
simply indicates that you think Judeo-Christian-Islamic iconography deserves a
special treatment within the fictional world of the DC Universe (rather than
being treated like all other myths, regardless of their truth value in the Real
World). Now, I'm somewhat sympathetic to this view. But I would certainly
expect you to respond to it by yelling "you don't know the difference between
fantasy and reality!", as you frequently have. After all, it's only a comic.
Nobody at DC is saying the real world works like this.
As ever,
Bennet
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>Let's try this the other way: Suppose someone were writing an historical novel
>about the life of, oh, Joan of Arc--one that treated her visions as legitimate
>religious experiences--and then threw in an English knight as a villian, one
>who had superpowers as a result of contact with an alien spaceship?
Depends. Is this an episode of TIME TUNNEL? Or, have the aliens come to
witness the ways of human warfare? It wouldn't work in an *historical* novel,
of course, but in a fantasy/science fiction novel taking place in 15th-century
France, it can be made to work - depending on the writer, of course. (Several
science fiction novels touch on this ground.)
The DC Universe is *not* an historical novel. It's not even a "one strange
twist" kind of fantasy. It has always had high-tech and magic, gods
(regardless of the tiny corner you've tucked them in) and alien races,
sorcerors and cyborgs - side by side. The Joan of Arc example you offer isn't
really any stranger than Wonder Woman meeting RobotMan. It just depends on the
context.
>It would be more than a little jarring, wouldn't it? Wouldn't seem to fit with
>the rest of Joan's world, right?
>THAT is how I feel about Zauriel et al in the JLA.
"Well, if the long-time reader is jarred because of his intepretation of a
30-year tradition that the casual reader would never know about, to hell with
the long-term reader! Angels *sell* - looked at TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL, or JLA!
Catering to the long-time reader is what's killing the industry! All that
matters is whether it's a good story *in and of itself*, not compared to other
comics from years ago!"
Sorry, that wasn't me; I was channeling.
Pat, if you find angels in the JLA jarring because of your (personal) reading
of the prior handling of magic in earlier incarantions of the JLA, or in the
DCU in general, and feel it appropriate to complain about it here (and I would
never deny you that right), then perhaps you can spare a little empathy for
readers who are similarly "jarred" when they run into inconsistencies.
Or perhaps not.
As ever,
Bennet
PatDOneill
In article <19980121064...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, bhm...@aol.com
(BHMarks) writes:
No--because the Supergirl currently starring in her own series isn't the
Supergirl who appeared in her own series in the 1960s through '80s. I wouldn't
tie her to the previous character's traditional themes anymore than I would tie
today's Superboy to the themes of the previous character of that name, or
Marvel's Captain Marvel to the themes of Fawcett's character.
Peter Meilinger
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <19980121064...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, bhm...@aol.com
> (BHMarks) writes:
> >>I'm not trying to have it both ways. As a title, SUPERGIRL has but two
> >years of history, all under the same writer, who has worked the same
> >themes from the beginning.
> >JLA has a nearly 40-year history, in which religion
> >has never played a part.
> Pat, what is this *nonsense*? Why is it that the
> >JLA's "40-year history"
> counts, but Supergirl's 30-year history (including
> >headlining her own series
> various times) - all without "religion" - doesn't
> >count? Man, are you trying
> to have it both ways!
> No--because the Supergirl currently starring in her own series isn't the
> Supergirl who appeared in her own series in the 1960s through '80s. I wouldn't
> tie her to the previous character's traditional themes anymore than I would tie
> today's Superboy to the themes of the previous character of that name, or
> Marvel's Captain Marvel to the themes of Fawcett's character.
I don't necessarily agree that Supergirl and the Justice League can't be
seen as having the same amount of history and tradition, but let's assume
for a minute that you're right. The Supergirl who's appearing now in her
own title has a history longer than two years, and has been written by
more than one writer. She started out in the Superman titles as a shape-
shifting blob of protoplasm named Matrix, and eventually her character
evolved into something very much like a human being, in soul if not in
form. During that character development, religion had NOTHING to do with
her character or her stories. So how come Peter David gets to change
Mae's character completely (in ways I myself don't care for, but that's
not really the point) but Morrison doesn't get to change the League?
If you want to say that the League's tradition has been around longer
and is thus more important, I won't agree but I also won't belittle your
opinion. But please stop acting like the current Supergirl character
didn't exist before PAD got his hands on her. And ruined her, in my
opinion, but that's another thread.
Pete
JohannaLD
From: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
>As a title, SUPERGIRL has but two years of history, all under the same
>writer, who has worked the same themes from the beginning.
>JLA has a nearly 40-year history, in which religion has never played a part.
Oh? I only know of 15 issues of a book called "JLA". Oh, I have some
"Justice League America" and some "Justice League of America" titles
in my collection, but that's not the same thing, by your Supergirl
reasoning. (I also have 10 issues of the original "Supergirl" title, and
20-some issues of "The Daring New Adventures of Supergirl", later
renamed simply "Supergirl", not to mention lots of issues of
"Adventure Comics Featuring Supergirl", but apparently these don't
count.)
Even if we want to count only Matrix's appearances, I have four issues
of a miniseries entitled "Supergirl" and several cover-featured appearances
in Showcase, in NONE of which she was an angel, and most of which
weren't written by the "same writer".
You're a hypocrite, Pat.
Johanna
PatDOneill
>You're a hypocrite, Pat.
Nope--just able to make distinctions you are not, apparently.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> >You're a hypocrite, Pat.
>
> Nope--just able to make distinctions you are not, apparently.
C'mon, Pat. Anyone can make _false_ distinctions.
Try making a _valid_ one and maybe someone will agree with you.
Peter Meilinger
> Nope--just able to make distinctions you are not, apparently.
Whether or not you're a hypocrite, you're dodging the question. Even
if we ignore the Kara Supergirl tradition, the Matrix Supergirl existed
several years before Peter David's title started. Yet you've repeatedly
stated that the current Supergirl's story has only been told by PAD in
the course of the last two years. You're wrong. And PAD is definitely
taking the character in directions that are not in line with the
"tradition" of the character presented before he started writing her, but
you have absolutely no problem with that. Which is fine, of course, but it
does make one wonder why you get so worked up over Morrison doing the
same thing in JLA.
Pete
David W. Stepp
In article <6a5jjv$2f2$1...@nntp-2.io.com>, Peter Meilinger <mell...@io.com>
wrote:
Particularly odd since Morrison has been a fairly hard core
traditionalist, esp for Morrison, in the new JLA. A lot of the original
elements have been re-introduced and they are fairly reminiscent of many
of the long-time elements of the league, mainly the big guns. The angelic
stuff was touched on only briefly and previous JLA incarnations certainly
had run-ins with the occult. (You can argue that Christianity and the
occult are different animals but if you're an athiest, it's all occult). I
don't consider myself a follower of any artist and certainly don't like
Morrison's other work but I can't find much fault with his interpretations
of JLA.
D.
JohannaLD
From: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
>>You're a hypocrite, Pat.
>
>Nope--just able to make distinctions you are not, apparently.
Please clarify these distinctions. So far you've given reasons that
are factually wrong.
Johanna
PatDOneill
>>Nope--just able to make distinctions you are not, apparently.
>
>Please clarify these distinctions. So far you've given reasons that
>are factually wrong.
>
Primarily that a series that carries essentially the same name and concepr,
with many of the same characters, as one that began 40 years ago is the same
series, relaunched.
And one that uses the same name, but a character who is completely different
from the previous one of that name, is not the same series.
By your lights, apparently, the recent relaunch of FANTASTIC FOUR at Marvel
should give its current creative team carte blanche to violate the traditional
tone of the 35-year history of the concept.
PatDOneill
> JLA as a concept has a 30 year history. Supergirl as a concept has a 30
>year history.
>
> JLA as a series under the current author has a 1 year history.
>Supergirl as a series under the current author has a 1 year history.
This Supergirl, as a concept, has, at best, a seven- or eight-year history, and
has never before starred in an on-going series where her character and the
themes surrounding it can be explored separate from the supporting cast of the
Superman titles.
Stopped trying to make this Supergirl an extension of a character that hasn't
seen print in 11 years, Stepp; it doesn't wash.
JLA has been the same concept--a gathering of DC's heroes--for 40 years. That
the book has been through three different series in that 40 years has no more
bearing on the nature of the concept than that Superman has appeared in
multiple titles in that time.
JohannaLD
From: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
>JLA has been the same concept--a gathering of DC's heroes--for 40 years. That
>the book has been through three different series in that 40 years has no more
>bearing on the nature of the concept than that Superman has appeared in
>multiple titles in that time.
And Supergirl has been the same concept -- a superpowered flying blond female
who's related to Superman in some way -- for decades. Want to be more specific
than that? Fine, then I get to point out that THIS JLA (which includes
Superman,
Batman, and the current Green Lantern) has only been around since the JLA:MSN
miniseries.
(In my opinion, "a gathering of DC's heroes" is way too vague a description,
since it covers both the largest names (Superman, WW, GL) and the version that
was mainly people no one had read before (Blue Beetle, Fire and Ice).)
Johanna
Mike Chary
JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>From: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
>
>>By your lights, apparently, the recent relaunch of FANTASTIC FOUR at
>>Marvel should give its current creative team carte blanche to violate
>>the traditional tone of the 35-year history of the concept.
>
>Or do you also think that the Giffen/deMatteis JLA was an aberration?
The Giffen/DeMatteis JLA did not violate anything. It was more humorous,
yes, but these heroes faught the greatest threats the world knew. They
faught traditional JLA villains on occasion. It was a fantastic balance.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
Vote Hosun Lee for favorite Rac.er in the Squiddies!!!!
Bring back Norm McDonald to the anchor desk of Weekend Update!
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
JohannaLD
From: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
>By your lights, apparently, the recent relaunch of FANTASTIC FOUR at
>Marvel should give its current creative team carte blanche to violate
>the traditional tone of the 35-year history of the concept.
If that's what the creators want to do, and the fans support it, sure.
Or do you also think that the Giffen/deMatteis JLA was an aberration?
Johanna
David W. Stepp
In article <19980122200...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>
> I can tell you that, in keeping a wide audience, thematic continuity is far
> more important than literal continuity.
You can tell us but no one will beleive you because you have never been
right about anything else without proof. Have I lectured you about
credibility lately Pat? Perhaps you have forgotten. It is an extremely
stupid position to insist that "thematic continuity is far more important"
while exclaiming that someone in a superman emblem can talk to God and
think she's an angel is perfectly reasonable. Where is the thematic
continuity in that? Also, themes are built on details and if you distort
the details, the themes make no sense. As I have stated in the past, this
may slip past your own low-resolution thought processes but I think it is
wise that you not under-estimate the rest of the audience.
But the Giffen League has nothing on Morrison.
D.
PatDOneill
>Zatanna, the New Gods, etc., etc.
Which are always explained in science-fictional terms, not religious ones.
BHMarks
>Which are always explained in science-fictional terms, not >religious ones.
I just read Byrne's latest JK's FW, with the origin of the 4 worlds. I saw
very little I would consider "science-fictional". If that's science-fictional,
then angels can be described in science-fictional terms as well.
And the fact that, in *one* Zatanna miniseries, it was revealed that there is a
sub-race of humans with inborn magical talent, and they are given a Latin name
(Homo magicus), does not make them "scientific". If we called Zauriel Homo
angelicus, would it change anything?
By your definition, *nothing* is magical except - by some sort of Pat fiat -
Judeo-Christian-Islamic concepts. What makes them special - *within the
framework of the story*?
As ever,
Bennet
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>I can tell you that, in keeping a wide audience, thematic continuity is far
>more important than literal continuity.
You can tell us. That doesn't mean it's true.
It depends entirely on context.
You have been known to go on at great length about the all-important "casual
reader", who may never have picked up a comic before - and "to Hell with the
long-time reader!"
But the casual reader knows nothing about the thematic continuity you're
insisting on.
>And what happens to everybody's sacrosanct continuity then? Or is it only
>"literal continuity" that counts (as in "that didn't happen in 1942, it
>happened in 1947") and "thematic continuity" (as in "that's not how the JLA
>view the world") does not?
The funny thing is, "changes of tone" (which you're now calling "thematic
discontinuity") *actually happen in the real world*! And opposed to changes of
detail, which do not.
A young married couple has a baby. *boom* Change Of Tone! An atheist has a
religious experience. *wow* Change Of Tone! A gay man comes out of the
closet. *zip* Change Of Tone!
Changes of tone also take place in novels, short stories, and even most comic
book series. They can work if written well.
Why shouldn't the JLA experience changes in how they view the world, based on
their experiences? Why should the fact that the JLA has never met an angel
before mean they never can?
You blasted "consistency & continuity" on the grounds that it didn't allow new
writers to do their stuff. But you seem to have enormous trouble when new
writers actually do their stuff. If a reader preferred the "old tone" to the
"new tone", well, naturally he'll be disappointed with the change. Other
readers (including your beloved casual reader) may love it. But, a priori,
there's nothing wrong with a change in tone.
I thought your rule was: "all the matters is if it's a good story *in and of
itself*. But I'm beginning to think you just want to see yet another six
stories about "how Clark Kent got his job at the Daily Planet", with mild and
unmemorable changes among them.
As ever,
Bennet
BHMarks
>Nope--just able to make distinctions you are not, apparently.
As far as I can tell, Pat, you are able to make any and all distinctions that
support your argument, regardless of whether these distinctions have any basis
in fact or logic.
As ever,
Bennet
PatDOneill
>The bell, book, and wheel spell used to resurrect the Demons Three is not
>only a complete, traditional-style spell, it has its roots in the Catholic
>ritual for exorcism.
Except it's bell, book, and candle. And exorcism is the opposite of calling a
demon to life.
Sure, you can pick up references to religion or religious practices in any
fiction, but using angels in JLA is like using laser pistols in a Mike Hammer
novel. It doesn't fit.
Oh--and here's a completely different objection, a basic problem with fictional
development:
Once you have your heroes defeat the hosts of heaven, what power can possibly
be a challenge to them? How do you believably have them defeated or even
threatened by anything less?
PatDOneill
>And that is how I feel about a blob of sentient protoplasm from an
>extradimensional universe suddenly becoming an angel of the Lord.
Except she hasn't. Nowhere has Peter David said that's what happened.
PatDOneill
>I just read Byrne's latest JK's FW, with the origin of the 4 worlds. I saw
>very little I would consider "science-fictional". If that's
>science-fictional,
>then angels can be described in science-fictional terms as well.
Of course, it's science-fictional: God waves, gods created on planets by
astronomical forces, etc. In religious terms, gods exist on a separate plane,
unaffected by such "mundane" events.
>And the fact that, in *one* Zatanna miniseries, it was revealed that there is
>a
>sub-race of humans with inborn magical talent, and they are given a Latin
>name
>(Homo magicus), does not make them "scientific".
But it certainly makes them science-fictional, doesn't it?
> If we called Zauriel Homo
>angelicus, would it change anything?
>
Not if you continued to insist that his home was the heaven of
Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief.
>By your definition, *nothing* is magical except - by some sort of Pat fiat -
>Judeo-Christian-Islamic concepts. What makes them special - *within the
>framework of the story*?
>
In the traditions of the JLA, nothing *is* magical. Magic is explained by
alternate dimensions, luck factors (and a previously unknown organ in the human
body that controls luck), and a host of similar non-mystical concepts. In the
JLA, magic is simply science that most of the human race doesn't understand,
the classic Arthur C. Clarke definition.
And the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concepts aren't magical, they are religious.
Big difference.
Peter Meilinger
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I just read Byrne's latest JK's FW, with the origin of the 4 worlds. I saw
> >very little I would consider "science-fictional". If that's
> >science-fictional,
> >then angels can be described in science-fictional terms as well.
> Of course, it's science-fictional: God waves, gods created on planets by
> astronomical forces, etc. In religious terms, gods exist on a separate plane,
> unaffected by such "mundane" events.
Does anyone else find it funny that Pat's arguing that religion has
NEVER, EVER (WE MEAN NEVER!!) had anything to do with the Justice League
while Wonder Woman (a product of the Greek pantheon) and Captain Marvel
(who gets his powers from 5 gods and one Christian hero/king) have been
members?
Not to mention Dr. Fate - isn't he/she empowered by the GODS of Order
and Chaos? I might be wrong on this one, but I do know that the good
Doctor's Order and Chaos fit my definition of god.
> >And the fact that, in *one* Zatanna miniseries, it was revealed that there is
> >a
> >sub-race of humans with inborn magical talent, and they are given a Latin
> >name
> >(Homo magicus), does not make them "scientific".
> But it certainly makes them science-fictional, doesn't it?
Pat, I've read any number of BAD fantasy novels that introduced races
that had an inborn talent for magic. Does that change the novels from
fantasy to science-fiction? Of course not. And giving something a
scientific name doesn't make it fall entirely within the realm of science
either. The roleplaying game Shadowrun has a hokey premise that
actually works pretty well - it's cyberpunk in the 2050's but magic
has also come back to the world, with dragons and spells and
everything. The scientists have classified the dragons as something
like Dracos Horribilis. That doesn't make Shadowrun a pure science-
fiction game, it just signifies that scientists WILL label something
whether they understand it or not.
Science-Fiction and Fantasy can overlap, and that can make for some damn
good stories. And some damn bad ones, of course.
> >By your definition, *nothing* is magical except - by some sort of Pat fiat -
> >Judeo-Christian-Islamic concepts. What makes them special - *within the
> >framework of the story*?
> >
> In the traditions of the JLA, nothing *is* magical. Magic is explained by
> alternate dimensions, luck factors (and a previously unknown organ in the human
> body that controls luck), and a host of similar non-mystical concepts. In the
> JLA, magic is simply science that most of the human race doesn't understand,
> the classic Arthur C. Clarke definition.
Heaven isn't an alternate dimension? News to me. I'd say Morrison went out
of his way to portray the angels in a pseudo-science-fictiony way. They
had a space-ship, fer Chrissakes! I saw Morrison's take on Heaven as
it's just another dimension peopled by extremely powerful beings. Maybe
they created the world, who knows, but I'd bet those weirdos from the
far future in the Rock of Ages story would kick Morrison's God's ass,
so God is obviously not the be-all and end-all.
> And the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concepts aren't magical, they are religious.
> Big difference.
What is the difference? I'm quite serious. To me, religion is superstition
that's still believed in. That makes it magic. Would you classify
Captain Marvel's as stemming from a magical or religious source? He
gets his powers from beings humans once worshipped. That makes him
an avatar of several gods, doesn't it? Do you have these complaints
about him? What about Wonder Woman? Didn't Justice League Europe
have a run-in with some Greek god? Maybe not, my memory is fuzzy.
But what if Morrison's JLA went up against Zeus, would you complain
then?
If you wouldn't, the only reason I can think of is because the
religion Morrison used is currently worshipped. That makes it a
much more touchy subject, but it doesn't make it any more valid.
Or any more non-magical.
Pete
David W. Stepp
In article <19980123123...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> Once you have your heroes defeat the hosts of heaven, what power can possibly
> be a challenge to them? How do you believably have them defeated or even
> threatened by anything less?
Yawn. Your powers of rationaliztion are prodigious. The JLA defeated
*A* host of heaven and a minor one at that. If you actually read comics
for details and content, you would know that that heaven is heirarchial
and that there are indeed things that would smite the JLA pretty swiftly,
namely the big G himself. While the minor forces are trivial in heaven,
they are pretty tough on earthlings. You would know this if you actually
paid attention to detail.
D.
Drew Zeigler
In article <19980123005...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> >Zatanna, the New Gods, etc., etc.
>
> Which are always explained in science-fictional terms, not religious ones.
Zatanna? You are so full of shit.
--
Drew Zeigler
dzei...@ix.netcom.com
mekt-...@lsh.org
de...@aol.com
1:1 rtaf
Edward Mathews
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
:
: Sure, you can pick up references to religion or religious practices in any
: fiction, but using angels in JLA is like using laser pistols in a Mike Hammer
: novel. It doesn't fit.
Ok, Pat. I'll bite. What do you consider fitting in the JLA? Please be
very specific. Perhaps we can send a copy to all JLA writers in the
future and make it their bible, er, I mean guide.
: Oh--and here's a completely different objection, a basic problem with fictional
: development:
:
: Once you have your heroes defeat the hosts of heaven, what power can possibly
: be a challenge to them? How do you believably have them defeated or even
: threatened by anything less?
Did you read JLA: Paradise Lost? The hosts of heaven were defeated by the
creator. Holding the hosts of heaven at bay, while a monumental task, is
not the same as having them defeated. Your criticism is one that I do
share, however. SuperGod and the Pantheon of 13 will need to face some
major threats to make the book enjoyable if that is going to be the tone
of the book. There are only so many dystopic future storylines that can be
told before you bore me into submission without making the threat an
actual threat.
Ed (advocate of the Giffen/DeMatteis years) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Drew Zeigler (mekt-...@lsh.org) wrote:
: In article <19980123005...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
: > >Zatanna, the New Gods, etc., etc.
: >
: > Which are always explained in science-fictional terms, not religious ones.
: Zatanna? You are so full of shit.
I don't think Zatanna's powers have ever been explained in religious
terms, have they? They're pretty purely magical, yes?
- Elayne
--
"I'm now going to smear clue musk on you and stand you in a field of horny
clues in the middle of clue mating season. I think it's the only way you
could ever possibly *get* A Clue."
- Leah Adezio
Good Elmo Hunting
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>>The bell, book, and wheel spell used to resurrect the Demons Three is not
>>only a complete, traditional-style spell, it has its roots in the Catholic
>>ritual for exorcism.
>
> Except it's bell, book, and candle. And exorcism is the opposite of calling a
> demon to life.
That's why I said it had its *roots* in the ritual.
> Sure, you can pick up references to religion or religious practices in any
> fiction, but using angels in JLA is like using laser pistols in a Mike Hammer
> novel. It doesn't fit.
Gosh, I pretty thoroughly enjoyed Mickey Spillane's Mike Danger from Tekno.
> Once you have your heroes defeat the hosts of heaven, what power can possibly
> be a challenge to them?
The Demons Three were considerably closer to omnipotent than the Bull Host.
Many of the JLA's opponents have been obscenely powerful.
> How do you believably have them defeated or even threatened by anything less?
By being a good writer. E.g., by having Dr. Amos Fortune curse them with
simple bad luck. By having three different Star-Tsars, including two
allies, confuse them with trickery and sleight-of-hand. By having
equivalent threats like Darkseid and the Philosopher's Stone show up.
--
"Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up
with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was
the Man; he had the Vote."--Terry Pratchett, Mort
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
PatDOneill
To all:
If you don't understand the difference between the fictional concept of magic
and the real-world concept of religion and the beliefs of those who are
religious, I can't explain it to you.
Look at it this way: Religious concepts, in the modern world, are matters of
faith; they can't be explained away by science or pseudoscience. That's why
"creation science" is an oxymoron.]
Magic isn't real; religion is.
PatDOneill
>> >Zatanna, the New Gods, etc., etc.
>>
>> Which are always explained in science-fictional terms, not religious ones.
>
>Zatanna? You are so full of shit.
>
>
I point you to the JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA stories (don't have the issue
numbers at hand) that presented the origin of Zatanna, in which we discover
that her mother is a member of an ancient offshoot race of humans, Homo
Magicus, who manipulate an energy that is called "magic" by others.
Such an offshoot race is just as much a science-fictional concept as Marvel's
Homo Superior, Homo Mermanus, Inhumans, Deviants, Eternals, etc....or DC's
inhabitants of underwater cities, etc.
Yes--Zatanna is explained as science fiction.
PatDOneill
> Yawn. Your powers of rationaliztion are prodigious
So are yours--if you all what you do "rational".
> The JLA defeated
>*A* host of heaven and a minor one at that. If you actually read comics
>for details and content, you would know that that heaven is heirarchial
>and that there are indeed things that would smite the JLA pretty swiftly,
>namely the big G himself. While the minor forces are trivial in heaven,
>they are pretty tough on earthlings. You would know this if you actually
>paid attention to detail.
>
So you're saying that, having defeated ONE host of heaven, the only things that
truly present a believable challenge to the JLA are another host of heaven or
God him(it/her)self?
So why should I believe, then, that the Key or Luthor or a dozen Luthors and
Keys put together should bother them?
JohannaLD
>Magic isn't real; religion is.
Magic IS a religion, recognized as such by the government. It's called
Wicca.
(My apologies to any practioners I might be offending with my
extreme oversimplification.)
Johanna
David W. Stepp
In article <19980123201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> > The JLA defeated
> >*A* host of heaven and a minor one at that. If you actually read comics
> >for details and content, you would know that that heaven is heirarchial
> >and that there are indeed things that would smite the JLA pretty swiftly,
> >namely the big G himself. While the minor forces are trivial in heaven,
> >they are pretty tough on earthlings. You would know this if you actually
> >paid attention to detail.
>
> So you're saying that, having defeated ONE host of heaven, the only
things that
> truly present a believable challenge to the JLA are another host of heaven or
> God him(it/her)self?
>
> So why should I believe, then, that the Key or Luthor or a dozen Luthors and
> Keys put together should bother them?
You lack intelligence. The answer is so obvious the educator in me
disdains giving it to you since this is something you would know if you
had read anything above a third grade reading level. Since I am merciful,
the answer is this: Nothing short of major alien invasions (100's of
them), dozens of angels/demons, or millions of normal humans would be a
physical brute force match for the JLA. That has been known since the
beginning of time. The role humans have played in antagonizing the JLA has
been to trick them, hold them hostage, be in more places than they can be
and in general pull the wool over the eyes. Luthor never attacks the
League with force because he knows he would lose. However if one is to
meet the JLA with force, little short of Heaven or Hell will suffice,
which I think is the point Morrison rather clearly made.
D.
Drew Zeigler
In article <19980123201...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> To all:
>
> If you don't understand the difference between the fictional concept of magic
> and the real-world concept of religion and the beliefs of those who are
> religious, I can't explain it to you.
>
> Look at it this way: Religious concepts, in the modern world, are matters of
> faith; they can't be explained away by science or pseudoscience. That's why
> "creation science" is an oxymoron.]
>
> Magic isn't real; religion is.
Wicca is a religion. Wicca involves the belief in magic. Thus, according
to you:
Wicca isn't real
and
Wicca is real.
It's been quite a few years since my last logic class, but I believe that
qualifies your above hypothesis as a fallacy or somesuch.
Drew Zeigler
In article <19980124012...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> Wicca may be a religion, but magic as portrayed in comics is not part of it. I
> know of no adherent of Wicca--and I know two or three of them--who believes,
> for example, that they can make things happen by talking backwards, or
>reciting
> doggerel and pointing their hands.
Wrong. Some branches of Wicca most certainly involve the belief that
rituals and the recited 'doggerel' that accompany them can and do
influence events and make things happen.
>
> Wicca is a nature religion, as I understand it.
Drew Zeigler
> Nope. Science-fiction--she's the descendant of an offshoot of humanity
with >the
> power to control energies that "normal" humans call magic. It was in the JLA
> issue of the 1980s that revealed her origin.
>
Nope. You could use this argument for Zatanna's mother. But Zatanna
doesn't use powers inherited from her mother, does she? She uses magic
that she inherited from her father, Zatara. He had the same powers. And
he was not a member of the offshoot branch. He was a normal human who
used magic.
Tom Galloway
In article <19980123201...@ladder01.news.aol.com> patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>So you're saying that, having defeated ONE host of heaven, the only things
>that truly present a believable challenge to the JLA are another host of
>heaven or God him(it/her)self?
>So why should I believe, then, that the Key or Luthor or a dozen Luthors and
>Keys put together should bother them?
The same way the Atom took out Darkseid; rather than raw physical
confrontation, the foes actually think and plan and take advantage of
their strengths and their opponents weaknesses.
tyg t...@Netcom.com
Tom Galloway
In article <19980123202...@ladder01.news.aol.com> patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>I point you to the JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA stories (don't have the issue
>numbers at hand) that presented the origin of Zatanna, in which we discover
>that her mother is a member of an ancient offshoot race of humans, Homo
>Yes--Zatanna is explained as science fiction.
Not so fast. That explained her mother. John Zatara, however, was not
said to be part of that race, and Zatanna's style of magic reflects him,
not her mother.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Jacob T. Levy
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> >Zatanna, the New Gods, etc., etc.
>
> Which are always explained in science-fictional terms, not religious ones.
>
I know I'm gonna regret this...
How does the Phantom Stranger fit into this... let's just call it
"odd" and "unorthodox" understanding of the JLA? How can you
characterize the Stranger as science fictional and not both magical
and religious (in the JLA he would show up talking about souls) in
any way that will not prompt the response "I do not think those words
mean what you think they mean"?
Jacob T. levy
The Phantom Stranger:
http://www.princeton.edu/~jtlevy/stranger.html
PatDOneill
>: > >Zatanna, the New Gods, etc., etc.
>: > Which are always explained in science-fictional terms, not religious
>ones.
>
>
>I don't think Zatanna's powers have ever been explained in religious
>terms, have they? They're pretty purely magical, yes?
>
>
Nope. Science-fiction--she's the descendant of an offshoot of humanity with the
power to control energies that "normal" humans call magic. It was in the JLA
issue of the 1980s that revealed her origin.
PatDOneill
>>Magic isn't real; religion is.
>
>Wicca.
>
>(My apologies to any practioners I might be offending with my
>extreme oversimplification.)
>
>
Wicca may be a religion, but magic as portrayed in comics is not part of it. I
know of no adherent of Wicca--and I know two or three of them--who believes,
for example, that they can make things happen by talking backwards, or reciting
doggerel and pointing their hands.
Wicca is a nature religion, as I understand it.
Nathan Sanders
In article <19980123201...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>Look at it this way: Religious concepts, in the modern world, are matters of
>faith; they can't be explained away by science or pseudoscience. That's why
>"creation science" is an oxymoron.]
>
>Magic isn't real; religion is.
Try telling that to those who belive in magic (the Wicca). To them, it
is as much a matter of faith as any other religion.
But aside from that, I still don't see the problem with having "God" and
angels in JLA, or how they don't fit in with "hard pseudo-science". For
all we know, these guys are just super-powerful aliens who like to think
of themselves as "God" and angels.
Given the "look" shown in JLA (spaceship, high-tech weapons, etc.), this
seems to be a more appropriate interpreatation of the characters
depicted.
Nathan
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Sanders ***** Department of Linguistics
san...@ling.ucsc.edu *** University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders * Santa Cruz, California 95064
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>Nope. Science-fiction--she's the descendant of an offshoot of humanity with
the
>power to control energies that "normal" humans call magic. It was in the JLA
>issue of the 1980s that revealed her origin.
"energies that 'normal' humans call magic".
As written, it sounds like (although does not state) the writer was indicating
that the energies weren't magic. Was this phrasing actually in the book, or
did you make it up?
I don't remember anything from the series that led me to believe that what
Zatanna and her people were doing wasn't magic, just because it "runs in the
family". So what? It's still magic.
Do you actually have a definition for "magic" and "hard pseudoscience" that
would lead to the categorization that you suggest, or are you just using the
words to mean whatever you like on a case-by-case basis?
Your example of Joan of Arc indicates an odd position on the place of religion
in fiction and in the world. Joan of Arc used a sword made of tempered steel -
top-notch technology for 15th century France - and she had experiences of the
divine. Today people use computers and cyclotrons - and some of them *still*
have experiences of the divine. (I'm not discussing the accuracy of the
experiences one way or the other.) Do laser pistols change the equation? Or
do you think that religion and science are incompatable? They both seem to
exist in the DCU, at any rate.
And why are *you*, of all people, drawing on a 1980s non-JLA miniseries to make
your point about how to interpret things in the 1990s JLA? You were the one
who said that a comic had to stand on its own, and should be evaluated without
regard to comics stories written years before and/or in other series. And that
all that's important is if a story is good *in and of itself*. And that a new
writer should be able to express his or her new take on a character or series.
And that all that was truly important was how the comic appealed to the new,
casual, or first-time reader (and to Hell with the long-time readers!) - who of
course knows nothing of Zatanna's 1980s miniseries or your 30-year
tradition[1].
Pat, these were the principles that you proclaimed when you were trashing the
continuity fans. Where are they now?
Angels are popular today. People like to read about them and watch them on TV.
Your attitudes about angels in the JLA are *bad for business*!
By the way, what do you think of John Byrne putting Etrigan - a demon from HELL
- next to Wonder Woman, whose powers and deities you ascribe to "hard
pseudoscience"? Sauce for the goose . . . .
As ever,
Bennet
([1] of course, I don't buy into the dogma described in this paragraph. As a
continuity fan, I can't casually discard the Zatanna miniseries. But I never
saw it as making her non-magical.)
BHMarks
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) said:
>I don't think Zatanna's powers have ever been explained in religious
>terms, have they? They're pretty purely magical, yes?
I think that's true. But Pat said they weren't even magic; they were "hard
pseudoscience".
It's unfortunate that we don't have a particularly useful definition of
"religious" in this context. Wonder Woman's powers come from her gods, so they
seem religious to me; but if the Greek gods are explained away as "advanced
science", that would seem to describe the powers as well. Have they been? To
Pat, yes, but not all of the rest of us see it.
And if the Greek gods are "advanced science", then how do we know that angels
and even "the Presence" (as it exists in the DCU, mind are) aren't just more of
the same? If Pat can catgorize the Source - the mysterious, sentient origin of
all life energy and power in the universe - as "science", why not the Presence
as well?
Of course, this is Pat's game. I don't see the Presence as "science", but I
don't see the Source that way either.
As ever,
Bennet
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>So you're saying that, having defeated ONE host of heaven, the only things
that
>truly present a believable challenge to the JLA are another host of heaven or
>God him(it/her)self?
>So why should I believe, then, that the Key or Luthor or a dozen Luthors and
>Keys put together should bother them?
Well, if it's a good story . . . .
:-)
Bennet
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>If you don't understand the difference between the fictional concept of magic
>and the real-world concept of religion and the beliefs of those who are
>religious, I can't explain it to you.
And anyway you would be explaining the wrong thing. We are talking about the
ficitonal concept of magic (in a particular fictional setting, the DCU) and the
ficitional concept of religion (in a particular fictional setting, the DCU).
What does this have to do with the real-world concept of religion? None of
these stories make any statements about the real world.
You've moved the bar yet again, Pat.
As ever,
Bennet
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> To all:
>
> If you don't understand the difference between the fictional concept of magic
> and the real-world concept of religion and the beliefs of those who are
> religious, I can't explain it to you.
There almost synonyms, Pat. Don't go into comparitive theology with us,
you'll
be out of your field of expertise. The only difference I see is that
fictional
magic works better than real world religion. (Hell, fictional religion
works
far better than real magic.)
>
> Look at it this way: Religious concepts, in the modern world, are matters of
> faith;
So is magic in both comics and real life. Hell, so is athletic
achievement!
> they can't be explained away by science or pseudoscience. That's why
> "creation science" is an oxymoron.]
Not if the proponderance of evidence points to instantaneous occurance.
(It doesn't but it is a valid scientific approach if used correctly.)
>
> Magic isn't real; religion is.
Plently of religions accept the existance of magic.
--
Yes, I've finally resorted to a Spam block.
To respond, remove the letters BLOCK from my address.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Rich.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> Wicca may be a religion, but magic as portrayed in comics is not part of it. I
> know of no adherent of Wicca--and I know two or three of them--who believes,
> for example, that they can make things happen by talking backwards, or reciting
> doggerel and pointing their hands.
>
Sorry, Pat, but we are ALL capable of making things happen by
"talking backwards, or reciting doggerel and pointing ... hands."
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> Try telling that to those who belive in magic (the Wicca).
Hey, not everyone who believes in magic is Wiccan.
They don't get a monopoly on the stuff!
<g>
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> I point you to the JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA stories (don't have the issue
> numbers at hand) that presented the origin of Zatanna, in which we discover
> that her mother is a member of an ancient offshoot race of humans, Homo
>
> Such an offshoot race is just as much a science-fictional concept as Marvel's
> Homo Superior, Homo Mermanus, Inhumans, Deviants, Eternals, etc....or DC's
> inhabitants of underwater cities, etc.
>
Just as a clarifier:
Did you think the Force in Star Wars was:
A) Magic
B) Religion
C) Science
D) Two of the above
E) All of the above
(These are not exclusive categories. Zatanna's people had a "scientific"
reason for being able to use a "supernatural" force.)
trak...@hotmail.com
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> So you're saying that, having defeated ONE host of heaven, the only things that
> truly present a believable challenge to the JLA are another host of heaven or
> God him(it/her)self?
>
> So why should I believe, then, that the Key or Luthor or a dozen Luthors and
> Keys put together should bother them?
>
in the DC Universe are from Judeo/Christian mythology. Just because a
majority of people in our society today hold a certain set of beliefs,
doesn't mean that said beliefs are true. Just ask the ancient Greeks.
trakkian
BHMarks
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
> Of course, it's science-fictional: God waves, gods created on planets by
> astronomical forces, etc. In religious terms, gods exist on a separate plane,
> unaffected by such "mundane" events.
Gods exist "on a separate plane"? The Greek gods lived on Mt. Olympus. The
gods of animists and pantheists exist in animlas and material objects. Pele
lives in a volcano. I've seen the volcano.
Most cultures don't even have a concept of "a separate plane".
Every culture tends to place its god or gods just beyond the culture's reach.
Early Hawaians couldn't enter a volcano, so it was safe to envision Pele there.
Now we can go in and look. So many people see God in the Big Bang (how
astronomical can you get?), or as someone who performed conspicuous,
unmistakable miracles in the ancient past (not today where we can see them),
and so on.
It is perfectly natural for a scientific culture to represent their god-stories
in terms of waves, astronomical forces, etc. Planets tearing asunder and
birthing gods is no more "unreligious" than a volcano. In additon to which, it
merely uses scientific imagery while ignoring all known scientific fact.
You seem to see an utter split between science and religion - not only that
they're different, but that they can't co-exist as imagery. Obviously false.
A ray gun is no more "unreligious" than a sword.
As ever,
Bennet
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>And the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concepts aren't magical, they are >religious.
>Big difference.
What is the justification (if any) for this statement *within the DCU*? How
can you tell the Greek Gods "aren't REALLY religious", but the angels are? All
we know about the angels - all they know themselves - is that they were created
by the Presence. We are given no direct information (just mixed opinions) on
the Presence itself. For all we know, it's an emanation of the Source (a
possibility mentioned by Byrne) - and maybe there's a real big-G God WAY above
all that.
Is there anything in the stories themselves that supports your distinction?
To an atheist, Pat, you're splitting hairs. To a follower of the Greco-Roman
gods, you're a blasphemer. To me, you appear to be someone who is taking the
default (by no means universal) religious beliefs of his surrounding culture
and projecting them - with enormous force - into a fictional setting, as though
whatever beliefs you (or perhaps people around you; I don't know your beliefs)
hold *must* also be true within the fictional setting.
Based on this, some people might say "you don't know the difference between
fantasy and reality!". I'd hesitate, though; maybe you're just trying to win
an argument.
As ever,
Bennet
PatDOneill
In article <19980124023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, bhm...@aol.com
(BHMarks) writes:
>"energies that 'normal' humans call magic".
As written, it sounds like
>(although does not state) the writer was indicating
that the energies weren't
>magic. Was this phrasing actually in the book, or
did you make it up?
That's the phrasing in the book as best I recall it. Writer Gerry Conway was
making Zatanna's powers fit within the context of the JLA's worldview.
>I
>don't remember anything from the series that led me to believe that
>what
Zatanna and her people were doing wasn't magic, just because it "runs in
>the
family". So what? It's still magic.
If it runs in the family, it's passed through the genes. Genetics are science
(or, the way they operate in comics, science-fiction). Paraphrasing Clarke
again, magic is just science we don't understand.
Do you actually have a definition
>for "magic" and "hard pseudoscience" that
would lead to the categorization
>that you suggest, or are you just using the
words to mean whatever you like
>on a case-by-case basis?
See above. Pull in acknowledged current-day religious concepts and you step
into another field entirely. Angels aren't "magic"; they are religious.
>And why are *you*, of all people, drawing on a 1980s non-JLA miniseries to
make
>your point about how to interpret things in the 1990s JLA?
I'm not; I'm drawing on a 1970s JLA story that established Zatanna's origins.
>You were the one
>who said that a comic had to stand on its own, and should be evaluated without
>regard to comics stories written years before and/or in other series. And
that
>all that's important is if a story is good *in and of itself*. And that a new
>writer should be able to express his or her new take on a character or series.
>And that all that was truly important was how the comic appealed to the new,
>casual, or first-time reader (and to Hell with the long-time readers!) - who
of
>course knows nothing of Zatanna's 1980s miniseries or your 30-year
>tradition[1].
My continuity complaints have always been against nit-picking and niggling.
Such as a five-year difference as to when the Fiddler should be operating. I'm
thoroughly in favor of a thematic continuity--that a series should always have
the same tone, so that a casual reader (who picks up a copy in March 1997 and
another in January 1998) finds himself reading about the same kind of world.
>By the way, what do you think of John Byrne putting Etrigan - a demon from
HELL
>- next to Wonder Woman, whose powers and deities you ascribe to "hard
>pseudoscience"? Sauce for the goose . . .
In my reading of it, Etrigan's hell is not the Hell of religious
belief--especially since it includes such non-religious concepts as the three
demons of JLA history and Neron. It's just another dimension where inhabitants
apparently tap into the same kinds of energy as Zatanna's ancestors did.
PatDOneill
In article <19980124070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, bhm...@aol.com
(BHMarks) writes:
>You seem to see an utter split between science and religion - not only
>that
they're different, but that they can't co-exist as imagery. Obviously
>false.
A ray gun is no more "unreligious" than a sword.
Because there IS an utter split. Religion seeks to answer questions that
science cannot answer, because the proofs of the questions are untestable. A
religious question is "What is the purpose of life?' Science can't answer that.
That's why the creationists are wrong. They are trying to apply a
non-scientific method to a scientific question.
It is also why scientists who ask for proof that God exists are wrong--they are
applying scientific method to a non-scientific question.
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>If it runs in the family, it's passed through the genes. >Genetics are science
So if angels ("sons of God") in the Biblical Genesis have relations with mortal
women, and their offspring have extra-normal aspects, we can conclude that the
angels written about in the Bible are really "science"?
Tolkien's elves gave birth to more elves. Is THE LORD OF THE RING science
fiction?
The fairies of Celtic myth intermarried with humans (passing down some of their
abilities), and lived in something that some would say resembles "another
plane". Are all fairy tales really "hard pseudoscience"?
And to bring it back home: Zatanna is descended from a subrace of humans who
have magical powers. Does this mean the powers aren't really magical, just
because "descended" has something to do with genetics, a "scientific" word?
(And, as tyg pointed out, *those same stories* indicated that Zatarra was *not*
of that race. And yet had magical abilities.)
You seem to believe that if a description of a magical event makes use of a
"scientific" word or term, even indirectly ("genetics", "astronomical", etc.),
then the magic is automatically drained out. If a witch puts a curse on a
computer, is the curse not "magical"?
You can, of course, invoke Clarke's Law. But be aware the Clarke would apply
this law to angels and devils as well.
As ever,
Bennet
Peter Meilinger
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <19980124023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, bhm...@aol.com
> (BHMarks) writes:
> That's the phrasing in the book as best I recall it. Writer Gerry Conway was
> making Zatanna's powers fit within the context of the JLA's worldview.
I'd bet he was writing what he thought was a cool story and not
specifically trying to fit Zatanna into any worldview. Whether he
achieved that as well is another matter, of course.
> If it runs in the family, it's passed through the genes. Genetics are science
> (or, the way they operate in comics, science-fiction). Paraphrasing Clarke
> again, magic is just science we don't understand.
Extreme example time, Pat. Say Jesus had a kid who could perform all his
tricks (this of course assumes that said miracles were real). Would that
make Christianity science? Someone else said it best in a reply to this
post - a scientific principle (genetics) explains why everyone in the
family could manipulate a supernatural force (magic).
Maybe magic is just science we don't understand. And maybe religion is the
the same thing. What happens if tomorrow some Scientist somehow proves
the existence of God? It would make Christianity both religion and
scientific fact.
> My continuity complaints have always been against nit-picking and niggling.
> Such as a five-year difference as to when the Fiddler should be operating. I'm
> thoroughly in favor of a thematic continuity--that a series should always have
> the same tone, so that a casual reader (who picks up a copy in March 1997 and
> another in January 1998) finds himself reading about the same kind of world.
I would argue that Morrison's JLA series HAS had a consistent tone.Your
example of March 1997 and January 1998 is a good one. I think a series
should indeed remain thematically consistent in a time frame like that,
and if a writer wants to change the theme it should be carefully thought
instead of done just for the hell of it. But you want someone who read
one issue of JLA Pre-Crisis (the Zatanna stories were in the 70's, you
said?) to be able to pick up a current issue and get the exact same
thing. Why?
> >By the way, what do you think of John Byrne putting Etrigan - a demon from
> HELL
> >- next to Wonder Woman, whose powers and deities you ascribe to "hard
> >pseudoscience"? Sauce for the goose . . .
> In my reading of it, Etrigan's hell is not the Hell of religious
> belief--especially since it includes such non-religious concepts as the three
> demons of JLA history and Neron. It's just another dimension where inhabitants
> apparently tap into the same kinds of energy as Zatanna's ancestors did.
The Hell occupied by Etrigan and Neron is demonstrably the same Hell
that is a counterpoint to Morrison's Heaven. See JLA: Paradise Lost.
So if Hell is just another dimension and anything can be done with it,
what are your objections to Morrison mucking about with Heaven? Or
are you saying that God somehow mistook a mere other dimension for the
true Hell?
Pete
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>I'm
>thoroughly in favor of a thematic continuity--that a series should always have
>the same tone
"Anything that gets in the way of the writer writing the story he wants to
write is garbage." Another principle gone. By the way, how do you feel about
Byrne's WONDER WOMAN, which has a very different tone from most other
incarnations of the comic, including the earliest stories?
Your restrictions on tone are far more onerous to a new writer than my
restrictions on consistency & continuity. I don't think I've ever seen a
long-lived superhero series that didn't change tone. People's lives change
tone; the world changes tone; our superheroes can't all be fighting Nazis
forever.
>>And why are *you*, of all people, drawing on a 1980s non-JLA miniseries to
make
>>your point about how to interpret things in the 1990s JLA?
>I'm not; I'm drawing on a 1970s JLA story that established Zatanna's origins.
Then why draw on that? Homo magicus was a *detail*, subject (according to you)
to being thrown away by subsequent writers, inconclusive in the whole "science
vs. magic" question, hardly ever mentioned again in any comic - and it didn't
explain away Zatarra's magic!
>Pull in acknowledged current-day religious concepts and you step
>into another field entirely. Angels aren't "magic"; they are religious.
And Felix Faust isn't "science-fiction"; he's magic. But if you can (through
special pleading, I should add) reduce Felix, the Three Demons, Zatarra and
Zatanna, to "hard pseudoscience", then you can reduce the angels as well.
Maybe we're not seeing "real divine angels", even though they think they are,
just as - according to you - we're not seeing "real magical demons", even
though the demons seem to think they are. Both views are equally well
supported by the text[1].
By your constant references to "acknowledged current-day religious concepts",
you seem to be accusing DC of blasphemy or political incorrectness. Which is
it? Becasue in a fictional setting, the *writers* get to decide what religious
concepts - concerning the origin of the world and mankind, the nature of
heavenly and infernal beings, the disposition of human souls - are "true" in
their fictional setting. But you seem to insist that the writers give special
ontological privileges to "acknowledged current-day religious concepts". Why
should they? It's their world; they're not saying anything about the "real
world". There's a difference between religious truth (whatever it may be) and
religious fantasy.
Of course, there is one reason to give current-day religions priority - you
don't want to offend. DC seems to have taken the position that in their
universe "all religions are somewhat true, none of them absolutely so." The
Southern Baptists may have a problem with this, but as a solution for a large
shared-universe fiction it has its advantages.
People's attitudes change, and the tone of popular fiction changes with them.
When, in the early days, the JLA all revealed their secret identities to each
other, that was a change in tone. Superman and Lois getting married changed
the tone in one of the longest ongoing literary relationships in history. Is
this disallowed? Today many people are fascinated by angels, which they
conceive of in all different forms and contexts (and buy books about by the
millions). Morrison's decision to use a certain kind of angel in JLA was a
change in tone (a slight one, for me, because I don't agree with you on the
implications of the previous uses of magic, and I've seen enough DCU angels in
the last few years to be used to it), but a perfectly understandable one. All
the "intermittent reader" (your *new* target market, and thanks for moving the
bar again) is likely to say is: "Boy, they didn't used to fight angels before!
That's [cool/stupid]" - his choice depending on whether he likes the story.
As ever,
Bennet
([1] that is, not very well in either case)
BHMarks
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) said:
>In article <19980124070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, >bhm...@aol.com
>(BHMarks) writes:
>>You seem to see an utter split between science and religion - not only
>>that
they're different, but that they can't co-exist as imagery. Obviously
>>false.
A ray gun is no more "unreligious" than a sword.
>Because there IS an utter split. Religion seeks to answer questions that
>science cannot answer, because the proofs of the questions are untestable. A
>religious question is "What is the purpose of life?' Science can't answer
that.
>That's why the creationists are wrong. They are trying to apply a
>non-scientific method to a scientific question.
>It is also why scientists who ask for proof that God exists are wrong--they
are
>applying scientific method to a non-scientific question.
You have completely misunderstood my statement, accidentaly or disingenuously.
I happen to agree with you that science and religion are different fields of
study, dealing with different questions (or should be). But they both co-exist
in the world, and the imagery can overlap. If Joan of Arc, sword in hand
(cutting-edge tech of the day) can legitimately meet an angel in a fictional
story, then Green Lantern, superscience ring on finger, can *also* legitimately
meet an angel in a fictional story. The presence of current-day or even
futuristic tech does not *preclude* religious experiences, any more than the
tech of 15th-century France would. (I am not taking a stand on whether Joan of
Arc met angels or not; it's just a take on Pat's example.)
And if the origin myths of the Norse gods - a giant cow licked the ice off the
world, revealing the frozen gods (I'm simplifying here) - was "religious" to
the people of the time, then the origin myths of the New Gods - a world is torn
asunder into two worlds, each world giving birth to a race of gods, one good,
one evil - is similarly "religious" to its people. The use of images such as
"worlds" or "Godwaves" doesn't change that at all. (And it's not as if the New
Gods myth gave us a lot of modern science. I think an ancient Greek could
swallow that story whole.)
As ever,
Bennet
PatDOneill
> By the way, how do you feel about
>Byrne's WONDER WOMAN, which has a very different tone from most other
>incarnations of the comic, including the earliest stories?
No, it doesn't. In fact, it's closer in tone to both the Marston/Peter original
and the Silver Age and immediately pre-Crisis versions than anything Perez did.
The only version of WW that wasn't clearly a superhero was Perez's version.
Byrne has returned her to that incarnation.
>When, in the early days, the JLA all revealed their secret identities to each
>other, that was a change in tone. Superman and Lois getting married changed
>the tone in one of the longest ongoing literary relationships in history.
Neither of those is a change in tone, it's a change in detail. if the JLA had
suddenly become about a family of superheroes (a la Fantastic Four), THAT would
have been a change of tone; if Superman, upon marrying, had dedicated his life
only to protection of his wife and family (as opposed to society in general),
THAT would have been a change in tone.
And, anyway, "tone" is your word. My word is theme.
>Today many people are fascinated by angels, which they
>conceive of in all different forms and contexts (and buy books about by the
>millions). Morrison's decision to use a certain kind of angel in JLA was a
>change in tone (a slight one, for me, because I don't agree with you on the
>implications of the previous uses of magic, and I've seen enough DCU angels
>in
>the last few years to be used to it), but a perfectly understandable one.
>All
>the "intermittent reader" (your *new* target market, and thanks for moving
>the
>bar again) is likely to say is: "Boy, they didn't used to fight angels
>before!
> That's [cool/stupid]" - his choice depending on whether he likes the story.
Why give the reader the opportunity to reject the book with "That's stupid" if
you can avoid it by not doing something that violates the thematic continuity
of the book?
PatDOneill
>Nope. You could use this argument for Zatanna's mother. But Zatanna
>doesn't use powers inherited from her mother, does she? She uses magic
>that she inherited from her father, Zatara. He had the same powers. And
>he was not a member of the offshoot branch. He was a normal human who
>used magic.
No. She uses both, according to the JLA story. And Zatara was trained by his
wife's people to manipulate those energies as best a normal human can.
PatDOneill
>Just as a clarifier:
>Did you think the Force in Star Wars was:
>A) Magic
>B) Religion
>C) Science
>D) Two of the above
>E) All of the above
Depends on who you're talking to; depends on whether you're Kenobi, Solo, or an
outside neutral observer. As an outside neutral oberver, the terms in which it
is described (an energy field that pervades all things) sound like science to
me.
>(These are not exclusive categories. Zatanna's people had a "scientific"
>reason for being able to use a "supernatural" force.)
No, they had a scientific ability to manipulate an energy that outsiders
regarded as supernatural.
Just because someone who has never seen a television set before calls it a
"magic box," that doesn't make it a supernatural object.
Terence Chua
In article <19980124140...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
>belief--especially since it includes such non-religious concepts as the three
>demons of JLA history and Neron. It's just another dimension where inhabitants
>apparently tap into the same kinds of energy as Zatanna's ancestors did.
And is the one in the JLA, the technologically-based angels, the
"Presence", etc., the one of religious belief since it contains such
non-religious concepts as stated?
Pat, I think you're making this up as you go along.
----------
Terence Chua <kh...@mbox2.singnet.com.sg>
WWW: <http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~tchua>
KhaOS@TinyTIM:<telnet://yay.tim.org:5440>
"Love ain't a dying art as far as I can see..."
BHMarks
You started with "tone". It's not my word. Do a Deja News if you need to.
But don't put words in my mouth.
>>When, in the early days, the JLA all revealed their secret identities to each
>>other, that was a change in tone. Superman and Lois getting married changed
>>the tone in one of the longest ongoing literary relationships in history.
>Neither of those is a change in tone, it's a change in detail.
What you have demonstrated here is that "tone" (or "theme") is so utterly
subjective that no two people are likely to agree on when it's changed. The
eternal romantic triangle of Superman/Lois Lane/Clark Kent was, to me, a big
part of the tone of the comics. Superman revealing his identity to Lois, and
the two of them getting married, changed the tone sharply for me - *far* more
sharply than the JLA battling angels, which seemed only a slight change of tone
to me.
What exactly is the "theme" of the JLA that is violated by them meeting angels?
(I'm sure you can retroactively construct one, but I bet it has helpful
details that wouldn't be in it before you started this discussion.)
>The only version of WW that wasn't clearly a superhero was Perez's version.
>Byrne has returned her to that incarnation.
Diana is a *goddess* now, not a superhero! And her mother has become Wonder
Woman to make up for her dastardly deeds. If you think a reader would not
immediately see this as having a different "tone" or "theme" from, say, the
first 30 years of WONDER WOMAN, they you have reduced those words to absolute
meaninglessness.
>Why give the reader the opportunity to reject the book with "That's stupid" if
>you can avoid it by not doing something that violates the thematic continuity
>of the book?
This is *exactly* and *precisely* what the continuity fans asked - why give a
long-time, ardent reader (who probably spends a lot more on comics than some
others) a chance to say "that's stupid" by including errors in consistency and
continuity, especially when essentially the same story could be told without
those errors. Your answers were laced with such utter contempt that it's hard
to extract the content from them, but I think the gist was: "All that's
important is the actual story, in and of itself. Anything that gets in the way
of the writer writing the story he wants to write is garbage."
Perhaps you'll tell me that those were my words, too. Do a Deja News on
yourself and "garbage" and you'll find the quotes.
As ever,
Bennet
BHMarks
>another in January 1998) finds himself reading about the same kind of world.
But if a reader who read Supergirl stories in his or her childhood (pre-CRISIS)
picks up a current SUPERGIRL - same name, same appearance, same costume, same
Linda Danvers secret identity (all of which makes your attempt to compare her
to, say, Marvel's Captain Marvel vs. Fawcett's Captain Marvel utterly bogus) -
and finds himself reading a story that is (and you've agreed with this) very
different in tone (or "theme"), that's just fine with you.
Why? Well, as far as I can tell, it's because you despise Morrison and like
PAD. And then you make up absolutist principles to back up your opinions and
excoriate anyone who doesn't see you're right. And when the principles come
back to haunt you, you make up exceptions to cover them.
If there's another answer, I can't find it.
Byrne's WONDER WOMAN has virtually every facet you identified as being
responsible for the fall of the comic book industry today: long, continued
stories with no pre-established endpoint; a "relentless mining of the past" for
story elements (Jay Garrick and Hippolyta travel to the past, where she meets
the JSA and joins them to become the Golden Age Wonder Woman - only Roy Thomas
could be more past-oriented than that!); issues that do not give a "complete
reading experience" (inclduing a mystery in SPEED FORCE that is only explained
6 months later in *a different comic altogether*); and so on. But I've never
seen you criticize him in this newsgroup. You like his work, so he's exempt
from your rules. But all other writers who don't live up to them - and all
other fans who don't share them - are destroying the comic book industry . . .
.
I don't like to sling derogatory labels around. But I think Johanna's got your
number, Pat.
NOTE TO ALL: in case of any confusion: I like PAD's SUPERGIRL. I enjoy
Byrne's WONDER WOMAN, though I wish he'd be a little more careful with
continuity. And I like Morrison's JLA, although I don't worship it - it's
brilliantly written but frequently doesn't cohere for me. Just if anyone
wondered.
As ever,
Bennet