Flex Mentallo #3
Paul Moorehead
It's curious that no one has had anything to say about the third issue of
'Flex Mentallo'. What do people think of it?
It was the most bizarre issue so far. I'm intrigued by this Hoaxer
character. Needless to say, I can't wait to find out the fate of the two
different Wallace Sages and of Flex Mentallo.
If, like me, you've been buying comics since you were a wee bairn, you may
have the following thought: How much of the reason that I like comic
books is some sort of residual adolescent infatuation with the idea of
people flying around in bathing suits and beating each other up? I was
fascinated by the discussion of this issue in 'Flex Mentallo' #3.
I'm also enjoying the intimation that Wallace Sage was happier as a geeky
teenage comic fan than as a musician. The move to what is commonly viewed
as a more adult medium has backfired on him.
Paul
Moby
Paul Moorehead (moor...@math.washington.edu) wrote:
: It's curious that no one has had anything to say about the third issue of
: 'Flex Mentallo'. What do people think of it?
I thought it was great... although I really think the great art
and colours on this book are truly a step above. A great book to just
look at... and I loved the covers too. :) We haven't had much discussion
on this because Marc and Cian haven't had their flamewar over tangential
topics related to this book yet. :)
: It was the most bizarre issue so far. I'm intrigued by this Hoaxer
: character. Needless to say, I can't wait to find out the fate of the two
: different Wallace Sages and of Flex Mentallo.
I think the Hoaxer is going to figure in prominently in the
finale... he's very interesting, and I REALLY love his powers. I think he
has that kind of unrecognized, great power that some well-written
characters tend to have. As for Wally Sage, I also predict an UNHAPPY
ending, for the version of Wally you least expect. That last page in #3
threw me for a loop though...
: I'm also enjoying the intimation that Wallace Sage was happier as a geeky
: teenage comic fan than as a musician. The move to what is commonly viewed
: as a more adult medium has backfired on him.
Hmm, I wonder how much of this is autobiographical. Sure,
Morrison's move into the "adult medium" hasn't backfired, he's an
extremely successful writer. But maybe he DOES yearn for his childhood
innocence of reading comics, etc. Maybe he was happier back then than he
is now... of course, he could always be talking about somebody else. But
Wally Sage's life is too "true to life" to be completely imagination on
Morrison's part, IMHO.
--
Moby
Henry Kong (hk...@unixg.ubc.ca)
Strangers In Paradise|Massive Attack|Invisibles|Sega|Virtua Fighter 2|DKR
Love & Rockets|Melanie Moore|Tricky|Details|King Mob|Salma Hayek| A D Phi
Carl Fink
In article <Pine.HPP.3.93.960705...@ionesco.math.washington.edu>,
Paul Moorehead <moor...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>It's curious that no one has had anything to say about the third issue of
>'Flex Mentallo'. What do people think of it?
Ten pages of story, ten of unnecessary and redundant self-indulgence.
Since you asked.
I'm going to try an experiment when the series is over, and ask some
naive fan to read issues 1, 2, and 4. I doubt they'll miss 3, since
very very little happens in it.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Dueling Modems, Inc. http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt/
"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet
deserves the highest protection from government intrusion."
--Federal Appeals Court ruling on the so-called "Decency Act" censoring
the Internet. Full text at http://www.cdt.org/ciec/decision.html
Derrick Rowlandson
Well I ddn't read it yet (waiting for all 4 issues), but the cover
seemed to follow suit (#3 = Bronze age) with the Dark Knight cover.
Derrick
Scott Simmons
In article <Pine.HPP.3.93.960705...@ionesco.math.washington.edu>
Paul Moorehead <moor...@math.washington.edu> writes:
>It's curious that no one has had anything to say about the third issue of
>'Flex Mentallo'. What do people think of it?
rather -- beautiful. One of the pleasures I've come to expect
from Morrison's stories is a union of emotional and intellectual
involvement. Like _Animal Man_, _St. Swithin's Day_, and the
_Doom Patrol_'s "Empire of Chairs," _Flex_ is pulling me into
its world on two levels simultaneously: The intricate associations
and metaphors, the tip-of-your-tongue allusions, and the odd
narrative technique -- where everything runs together, including
Wally's and Flex's captions and dialogue -- keep my intellect
in the "on" mode while reading. But Wally Sage's pitiful truths
and embarrassing need to be listened to won't let me read on a
purely analytical level.
"I just wanted to talk about the comics," he says. "All those
shitty, amazing comics ... ." Who among _Flex Mentallo_'s
audience hasn't felt the same? It's why we hang out in comics
shops, go to conventions, read newsgroups posts, and explain
in painful detail the things our girlfriends don't give a damn
about (all the while thanking God for their indulgence). Hell,
if I were committing suicide, I'd probably be doing the same
thing Wally Sage is. Embarassing as it is, Wally Sage speaks
for the most pathetic -- try not to attach a negative connotation
to that word, if possible -- underpinnings of my lifelong love
of comic books. Sure I can offer valid, sophisticated reasons for
appreciating comics, but those aren't the real reasons why I
love them. Those reasons are lost, left behind somewhere in
the vague years when I started reading comics at the age of --
of --
Well, whenever I started reading them. I honestly don't
remember.
At any rate, I'm sure a lot of my love of super-heroes stems
from that "residual adolescent infatuation with the idea of
people flying around in bathing suits beating each other up."
Not that I'd ever admit it. Not that any serious aficionado
of comic books, dedicated in his own way to changing the public's
perception of them, would admit to it, except in the most trusted
of company.
Yet here's Grant Morrison, stripping away the intellectual
trappings of a sophisticated, largely undiscovered medium and
showing us the clumsy passions that have driven its readers and
creators for decades. Amazingly, he depicts those passions so
deftly and tenderly that we -- or at least I -- embrace rather
than disown them. Disturbing and embarassing though they may be,
Morrison gives equal time and non-judgemental consideration to
the most primal motivators behind a life-long love of comic books.
To borrow the metaphor from _Flex_ #3, we are carnally involved
with our comics. And what a marvelous lover _Flex Mentallo_ is,
standing naked and embarrassed before us with no idea how heart-
breakingly beautiful she is.
-- J. Scott Simmons,
alien at large
Simmons...@sc.edu
There's more to say, of course, but I suspect I'm beginning to
feel a bit embarassed myself. That's the price of trying to
write about something yo love at a ridiculous hour of the morning.
Mr. R.I.N.G.
>
> I thought it was great... although I really think the great art
> and colours on this book are truly a step above. A great book to just
> look at... and I loved the covers too. :) We haven't had much discussion
> on this because Marc and Cian haven't had their flamewar over tangential
> topics related to this book yet. :)
issues. By that vaguarity, I mean that the mood has been different each
issue. #3 has by far the most development for Wally Sage, but the least
for Flex. I think the covers have been a hoot n' holler, but I wonder
where the idea for cover #4 will come from. Golden age, silver age EC,
Dark Knight Returns, ......
> I think the Hoaxer is going to figure in prominently in the
> finale... he's very interesting, and I REALLY love his powers. I think he
> has that kind of unrecognized, great power that some well-written
> characters tend to have. As for Wally Sage, I also predict an UNHAPPY
> ending, for the version of Wally you least expect. That last page in #3
> threw me for a loop though...
>
Hoaxer : He was the red garbed rouge from issue #1 that was being led
into the police station. I think he was also in the hero spaceship, too.
As for Wally Sage, I feel like that old game show should take over :
"Will the real Wally Sage please stand up?" That is the real mystery, who
is Wally Sage in a muti-verse kinda way. He is either
1. Wally Sage, musician and soon to be drug O.D.ed
2. Flex Mentallo, man of Muscle Mystery
3. The cop with the worst sense of sideburn art this side of Elvis
4. The goldfish (a consistant theme, eh?)
5. The boy Wally Sage imagining it all
Are there other considerations?
>
> Hmm, I wonder how much of this is autobiographical. Sure,
> Morrison's move into the "adult medium" hasn't backfired, he's an
> extremely successful writer. But maybe he DOES yearn for his childhood
> innocence of reading comics, etc. Maybe he was happier back then than he
> is now... of course, he could always be talking about somebody else. But
> Wally Sage's life is too "true to life" to be completely imagination on
> Morrison's part, IMHO.
I think he is still excited about the idea of the multi-verse from old DC
and the implications that that kind of thinking can lead to concerning
our own 'reality'. That is why I am unsure about how things are going to
wind up in the end, because any choice about what happens will change the
overall effect of the book.
1. If the adult Wally Sage is the main character, his universe of
creations (Flex) my go down with him.
2. If Flex is the most real character, he will have to break out of four
colour reality to save Wally if he can.
3. If he is the cop, then I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing is
an attempt by his subconcious to try and give him the same sense of life
and adventure he had as a child.
4. If the goldfish is the 'real' creature, then everything may be
attempting to prevent it's death.
5. If it is the child Wally, then it could be a "don't wind up like a old
cop, or a dead goldfish, or a drugged out rocker - be a hero!", in the
best uplifting comic book sense.
Just to close, I think that the obbsesion with superhero sex is a phase
that many readers go through that is across all aspects of life. I
remember when, about 12-13 years of age, where I was still reading about
everybody beating one another up, but I would be drawn to the beauty of
the super ladies like Storm of the X-men or the Black Cat. I even looked
through old Creepy's at the Frazzetta ads in the back and let out a sigh
of teenage longing. Oh well...
Mr. R.I.N.G.
David Crotty
I think Morrison is doing what Kingdom Come is trying to do in a much
more interesting and imaginative way (all the heroes have left us).
Loved those Dark Knight references (the cover, obviously, and the hoods
who attack the girl in the alley).
dave
MATTHEW Z. WOOD
All embarressment aside, thanks for the post. I enjoyed what you
had to say. I don't know where Flex is going, but this book really is
something else.
I'm very afraid of Lord Limbo, even if he is a good guy.
TTFN,
-Matt
Paul Moorehead
On 9 Jul 1996, David Crotty wrote:
> I think Morrison is doing what Kingdom Come is trying to do in a much
> more interesting and imaginative way (all the heroes have left us).
I agree. I think that both 'Flex Mentallo' and, if I can have a feel for
where it's going based on only one issue, 'Aztek', are running alongside
'Kingdom Come', in terms of themes. But 'Flex Mentallo' and 'Aztek' look
to be, in the long run, much more satisfying. I'd be surprised if
'Kingdome Come' had any lasting influence. But I could see 'Flex
Mentallo' leaving a real mark.
Paul
Scales
In article <177BF1637S...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>,
JSS...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU (Scott Simmons) wrote:
<<a lot of great, thoughtful stuff and then...>>
> There's more to say, of course, but I suspect I'm beginning to
> feel a bit embarassed myself. That's the price of trying to
> write about something yo love at a ridiculous hour of the morning.
Scott,
Great post. Here I was worrying Morrison had shamed us all into silence by
labelling us "fucking rejects" on p. 11.
I have a few half-assed observations / annotations to offer in hopes of
stimulating further conversation... maybe someone else will say something
smart and purty.
But I am going to have spoilers and so,
"spoiler space"
(as they call it)
OK. First, I was really surprised by the story picking up with Detective Harry
and not Flex. The story, as appropriate if it is going to be riffing on The
Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, is chock full of undefined apocalyptic dread.
Well of course so were the previous issues - everyone certain of some terrible
end rushing towards them, but that no one has really yet defined.
The little goldfish bowl on pp 2-3 of course comes complete with one of
those li'l castles Wally finds so threatening. And a fish named Peter....
We see what is presumably the final resting place of Nannoman and Minimiss on
p. 5, and the lieutenant's wife mentioned dreaming of "two tiny little people
in cigarette packets".
I'm probably treating the story more like a typical story than I should, BUT, I
was also surprised by the introduction of the Hoaxer (I know he cameo'd some
earlier, but still...). I have to figure his "Implicit in the design of
any prison is the means of escape from that prison" comment is telling us
that the detective wanting his help was his means of escape. The
detective gets him out after all.
By the way, I don't think the Hoaxer is in the satellite scene in issue 2 - at
least, I don't see a figure there who has both a bald head and a scaly suit.
As mentioned previously, nice Dark Knight reference on p. 8 - and Wally later
wonders if the woman was raped or turned into the sister of satan - which is
pretty much how that scene would go in most comics. That or Spider-Man
would swing down to save her.
The reference to the jail cell with "the walls covered with so many drawings you
can't tell it's a prison anymore" would seem to sorta harken back to the
Hoaxer's cell with it's superchick pornography, but you of course can still tell
that the Hoaxer is in a cell... that or hard at work drawing for Extreme
Studios I suppose.
Another nice scene that could've been a Silver Age cover on p. 12 - Flex and
Walter Ego vs. the Counting Tree!
I was surprised on the same page to read that Flex is looking for the Legion
of Legions so that they can HELP him avert whatever doom seems to be looming
over his world. My reading of the last issue had me thinking he was looking for
them because he thought they were somehow responsible for the nebulous doom
(since they and Faculty X share the same headquarters, and we'd just read all
sorts of superhero induced paranoia).
p.13 - More backwards-speak. "Puh warg nevha" would seem to equal "Never grow
up." Certainly in keeping with the thoughts running thru Flex/Wally's head(s)
in the pages to follow. I suppose that means the backwards-quote in issue
1 was definitely "Dreams have children." Loved the comment about "adult"
superheroes at the bottom of this page.
This is followed by pages and pages of "power-porn for retards" (he means
us I guess), Wally turning on comics and siding with Fredric Wertham, a
litany of Legion of Legion members (gotta love "The Gentleman Gorilla"),
and the shocking and, as far as I am concerned, baffling conclusion.
Definitely a surprising and unpleasant chapter (but, then, it was during
the 80s when we learned that some of our superheroes weren't as pure as we
had previously thought)... I hope Flex #4 makes it all worthwhile. I
wonder... will
it contain "The Death of Flex Mentallo"? Creator-owned Flex? The all-new bad
girl Flex Mentallo? Probably an even worse threat... I'm looking forward to it.
cc
Marc Singer
In article <4rrq3u$h...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Moby <hk...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Paul Moorehead (moor...@math.washington.edu) wrote:
>
>: It's curious that no one has had anything to say about the third issue of
>: 'Flex Mentallo'. What do people think of it?
>
>on this because Marc and Cian haven't had their flamewar over tangential
>topics related to this book yet. :)
Oh, okay. Flex Mentallo #3 and the Congress of Vienna: discuss.
(I'd use some pseudo-academic topic like "Flex and the Foucaultian theory
of power" instead, but Tannhauser's gone... *damn*.)
>: It was the most bizarre issue so far. I'm intrigued by this Hoaxer
>: character. Needless to say, I can't wait to find out the fate of the two
>: different Wallace Sages and of Flex Mentallo.
>
> I think the Hoaxer is going to figure in prominently in the
>finale... he's very interesting, and I REALLY love his powers. I think he
>has that kind of unrecognized, great power that some well-written
>characters tend to have.
Morrison tends to come up with great powers for his characters... like
the Quiz, who had all the super-powers you haven't thought of yet.
Anybody else wondering what the Hoaxer's greatest hoax actually was? He
shines his tin again, and the next thing we see is Wally slumped in the
alleyway. I don't know if the Hoaxer is behind the level of 'reality'
that seems to be the older Wally, though.
Later, Wally talks about a jail cell crowded with so many comic-book drawings
that you can't tell it's a jail cell anymore. That seems to match the
Hoaxer's cell and his power. Could that be his hoax, then -- convincing
himself his cell is not a cell? (Or, on a larger level, superhero comics
convincing people they aren't in cells?)
Despite the Hoaxer, I didn't enjoy this issue as much as the previous two.
Too much Wally Sage, too little Flex. And the issue seemed to just drive
the same one or two points home over and over again, for much longer than
necessary. Superheroes are really just sublimated sex? Okay, we get it.
This issue didn't have quite the scope of the first two; while they tackled
the entire Golden Age (sidekicks and magic words) and Silver Age (bizarre
transformations, Kryptonite, superhero teams), this one didn't quite tackle
all the Modern Age cliches as the cover led me to hope it would.
That being said, the superhero orgy scene was perversely inspired and fun
to read. (I loved how the "clean," Silver-Agey heroes' names were repeated
over and over like a protective mantra... and I really want to see the
Gentleman Gorilla.) And there were five words that made it all worthwhile:
"FREDERIC WERTHAM WAS FUCKING RIGHT!"
In his neverending quest to shock his readers, I think Grant Morrison has
found the one sentence that really hits superhero comic readers where it
counts. People may disagree over which hero or writer or company is best,
but they'll all band together and agree that Wertham was wrong. This very
hierarchy is filled with people who boldly disagree with his forty-years-old
book (these are often the same people who lament the way "the industry
screwed Kirby" without actually having read any Kirby, you know?). That one
sentence of perversity and rebellion against comic-fan orthodoxy is pure
Morrison.
Marc
Matthew Trevor
"Mr. R.I.N.G." <gs0...@panther.Gsu.EDU> wrote:
>As for Wally Sage, I feel like that old game show should take over :
>"Will the real Wally Sage please stand up?" That is the real mystery, who
>is Wally Sage in a muti-verse kinda way. He is either
>
>1. Wally Sage, musician and soon to be drug O.D.ed
>2. Flex Mentallo, man of Muscle Mystery
>3. The cop with the worst sense of sideburn art this side of Elvis
>4. The goldfish (a consistant theme, eh?)
>5. The boy Wally Sage imagining it all
>
>Are there other considerations?
I'm not convinced that the dying man we're witnessing *is* "Wallace Sage".
Note in #1, when he first tells his name, he hesitates before giving it, and
then stresses that it's his "secret identity".
Much has been made of the pseudo-autobiographical nature of _Flex Mentallo_,
and I'm kind of toying with the idea that "Wallace Sage" is an alternative
Morrison, one who focused on music instead of comics. Wasn't Morrison in a
band during his teens?
Another crazy idea I've got is that the cop and Flex Mentallo are one and the
same, or inverse reflections of each other, or something. The sideburns are
similar, their noses and overall build are similar, with Flex being the
physical "ideal", and the lieutenant being the "real". I'm more than likely
wrong, but it seems interesting to me, nevertheless.
The layers seem to go something like this: "Wallace Sage" wrote a series of
comics, as a child, about a child, Wally Sage, who created a comic character,
Flex Mentallo, which came to life through Wally Sage's power, too late to save
him. Now that "Wallace Sage" is dying, he's about to bring Flex Mentallo one
step further, again, I suspect, to late to save anyone.
The lieutenant and the Hoaxster are in the "intermediate" (or "Wallace
Sage's") comic level, and may be instrumental in helping Flex out of that
comic level into the "real" world (or our comic level).
Matthew T.
(I hope this is getting through, I seem to be getting no responses to previous
comments on earlier FM issues)
Andrew Boer
>There's more to say, of course, but I suspect I'm beginning to
>feel a bit embarassed myself. That's the price of trying to
>write about something yo love at a ridiculous hour of the morning.
>
Scott.
Lovely post. (I've been lurking for a while, but I thought I'd come
out and say so).
Sincerity huh? You must be new round these parts.
At any rate, you've given me impulse to get to that comic shop I've
been avoiding and pick up Flex Mentallo #3.
By the way, I don't think its so much that we were fascinated by these
superheroes as children, so much as that we secretly longed to be
them. The fabulous thing about superpowers is that they make you a
priori unique. There is no work to it...you don't have to strive for
years to be the worlds greatest violinist...you just wake up one day
shooting fire from your arms.
Anyway, I enjoyed your comments...
Aw hell, maybe I'll even pick up the next BoM just to irk John.
MC Grammar
>Hmm, I wonder how much of this is autobiographical. Sure,
>Morrison's move into the "adult medium" hasn't backfired, he's an
>extremely successful writer.
Is he really? He has a devoted following, sure, but I don't know that he's
been all that successful financially. Maybe it's just his public persona,
but in his interviews he strikes me as someone who cares a great deal for
money, fame, the right clothes, etc. Both here and in the Invisibles, he
seems to be playing out his fantasy of being a famous rock star. Really,
really famous, not just well known by a small group of fans.
I thought this issue was *very* autobiographical. The man doesn't like
himself much, does he?
Jill
David W Lockhart
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.comics.dc.vertigo: 10-Jul-96 Re: Flex
Mentallo #3 by MC Gra...@aol.com
> been all that successful financially. Maybe it's just his public persona,
> but in his interviews he strikes me as someone who cares a great deal for
> money, fame, the right clothes, etc. Both here and in the Invisibles, he
> seems to be playing out his fantasy of being a famous rock star. Really,
> really famous, not just well known by a small group of fans.
>
> I thought this issue was *very* autobiographical. The man doesn't like
> himself much, does he?
I read much of this as being Grant's speculation on what it would have
been like for him to be a musician instead of a comics writer, i.e. that
he would be fundamentally unhappy with it and pine for the good old days
as a kid when he used to write and draw his own comics. Now, that could
be equated to Grant saying that he recognizes he doesn't really want to
be a rock star, he is just the sort of person who has to be unhappy in
that way. Or that he doesn't want to be a rock star, he wants to be a
kid who wants to be a rock star (again). It could also be a somewhat
ironic sort of liking oneself, or at least the way one's life has
developed. Sort of an admission that, in the end, he is doing what he
really loves what he does.
Mark Stephenson
MC Grammar wrote:
>
> In article <4rrq3u$h...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, hk...@unixg.ubc.ca (Moby) writes:
>
> >Hmm, I wonder how much of this is autobiographical. Sure,
> >Morrison's move into the "adult medium" hasn't backfired, he's an
> >extremely successful writer.
>
> been all that successful financially. Maybe it's just his public persona,
> but in his interviews he strikes me as someone who cares a great deal for
> money, fame, the right clothes, etc. Both here and in the Invisibles, he
> seems to be playing out his fantasy of being a famous rock star. Really,
> really famous, not just well known by a small group of fans.
>
> I thought this issue was *very* autobiographical. The man doesn't like
> himself much, does he?
>
I get the impression that the issue is autobiographical in as much as most
of us lads can relate to it. Can't speak for you girls though.
Grant already is a pop star. Pop, not rock.
I don't know about successful though.
How are "The Fauvres" (sp) doing?
Aaron Mandel
Derrick Rowlandson (der...@cs.athabascau.ca) wrote:
: Well I ddn't read it yet (waiting for all 4 issues), but the cover
: seemed to follow suit (#3 = Bronze age) with the Dark Knight cover.
Anyone else think the cover to #4 will be an infinite regress -- using
none other than Flex #4 itself as the comic from the modern age to depict?
Aaron
Derrick Rowlandson
ama...@course1.harvard.edu (Aaron Mandel) writes:
>Anyone else think the cover to #4 will be an infinite regress -- using
>none other than Flex #4 itself as the comic from the modern age to depict?
I think it will be a mockery of an Image comics title, you know big breasted
scantily clad woman with big muscles type of thing.
Derrick
Scott Simmons
In article <Pine.HPP.3.93.96070...@ionesco.math.washington.edu>
Paul Moorehead <moor...@math.washington.edu> writes:
>On 9 Jul 1996, David Crotty wrote:
>
>> I think Morrison is doing what Kingdom Come is trying to do in a much
>> more interesting and imaginative way (all the heroes have left us).
>
>to be, in the long run, much more satisfying. I'd be surprised if
>'Kingdome Come' had any lasting influence. But I could see 'Flex
>Mentallo' leaving a real mark.
>
>Paul
The comparison of _Flex Mentallo_ to _Kingdom Come_ is
an intriguing one. Both indeed deal with the question
of our changing perceptions of heroes -- specifically,
super-heroes -- but they do it in very different ways.
_KC_ addresses the question through metaphor, showing
us a world where the literal super-heroes have fled. The
super-hero world of _KC_ reflects the super-hero world
presented in the comics of our real world.
_Flex_, however, takes a different look at the changes in
our perceptions of the super-hero in the last 50 years.
Rather than using the super-hero world to reflect the
super-hero genre, _Flex_ addresses the fictions themselves.
In Morrison's series we have characters we were once
super-heroes transferred into the "real" world. (I say
that with reservations -- the "real" world in this case
appears to be a version of the DC Universe, which is quite
unlike our own "reality.")
If anything, the progression of the metaphor in _Flex_
runs against the one Waid is using in _Kingdome Come_.
Now for my reservations about the comment that _Flex_
will have a more lasting effect than _KC_:
While _Flex_ is certainly the more comprehensive
examination of that central question (Where have the
super-heroes all gone?), I doubt it will have the a
more lasting impact on our industry than _Kingdom Come_.
_KC_ has a much wider context within the genre of
super-heroes and indeed within the comics industry itself.
As a companion piece to _Marvels_, _KC_ helps frame the
mythic apocalypse of super-heroes (whereas _Marvels_
depicts a super-hero cosmogony). Between the two, we have
a well-crafted meditation on the nature and mythology of
the super-hero as realized in the two largest and most
important pantheons of the 20th Century -- the Marvel
and DC Universes.
_Flex_, on the other hand, is as concerned with other themes
(art, millennium fever, reality and its appearances, sexual
development, etc.) as it is with super-heroes. And, whether
for better or for worse, the majority of comics readers are
more concerned with the nature of super-heroes than with the
nature of art.
Maybe in the _long_ long term (say, 50 or 100 years) _Flex_
will have the kind of canonical impact it should. I doubt
we'll see it in the next 10 or 20 years, though.
Abhay Khosla
On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Scales wrote:
> In article <177BF1637S...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>,
> JSS...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU (Scott Simmons) wrote:
> <<a lot of great, thoughtful stuff and then...>>
> > There's more to say, of course, but I suspect I'm beginning to
> > feel a bit embarassed myself. That's the price of trying to
> > write about something yo love at a ridiculous hour of the morning.
> Scott,
> Great post. Here I was worrying Morrison had shamed us all into silence by
> labelling us "fucking rejects" on p. 11.
I was more cowed by 'power porn for retards'... that dug in...
> I have a few half-assed observations / annotations to offer in hopes of
> stimulating further conversation... maybe someone else will say something
> smart and purty.
Not likely. I'm an inconsequential and frothing man myself...
> But I am going to have spoilers and so,
> "spoiler space"
> (as they call it)
> I'm probably treating the story more like a typical story than I should, BUT, I
> was also surprised by the introduction of the Hoaxer (I know he cameo'd some
> earlier, but still...). I have to figure his "Implicit in the design of
> any prison is the means of escape from that prison" comment is telling us
> that the detective wanting his help was his means of escape. The
> detective gets him out after all.
Probably the most important line into #4. Now if I could just figure out
who's escaping to where? Wally to Flex, the Hoaxer and the Detective to
the real world before the fantasy-world dies, if its the fantasy-world,
Flex to who knows?
And it occurs to me the whole issue of where the Fact is really doesn't
matter to me as much in #3.. which isn't quite right...
> Another nice scene that could've been a Silver Age cover on p. 12 - Flex and
> Walter Ego vs. the Counting Tree!
I liked Walter Ego but the Counting Tree and the Cabinet fell short...
Not as strong as before...
> This is followed by pages and pages of "power-porn for retards" (he means
> us I guess), Wally turning on comics and siding with Fredric Wertham, a
> litany of Legion of Legion members (gotta love "The Gentleman Gorilla"),
> and the shocking and, as far as I am concerned, baffling conclusion.
He quoted the People Magazine article! Or wherever it appeared, not
People, but that magazine article- 'Bam Pow Comics have grown..'.
Another favorite bit of dialogue is 'Fuck it. Fuck it.' but thats all
context, I suppose...
> Definitely a surprising and unpleasant chapter (but, then, it was during
> the 80s when we learned that some of our superheroes weren't as pure as we
> had previously thought)... I hope Flex #4 makes it all worthwhile. I
> wonder... will
> it contain "The Death of Flex Mentallo"? Creator-owned Flex? The all-new bad
> girl Flex Mentallo? Probably an even worse threat... I'm looking forward
> to it.
> cc
I never really noticed the way time was progressing until this issue.
Noticed in the covers, but didn't feel it as strong. This would probably
be great to read all at once. As for #4... I think pushing past time
with #4 would be... I'd rather see the prescription than another
diagnosis you know? Because after blasting the Dark Knight Returns Age,
its kinda weak to go after bad girls or Image or the Death of ... After
Power Porn to Retards to Power Porn for People Even Stupider Than the
First Group If thats Humanly Possible...
As for #3, it was swell, but disjointed, a bit broken up. More and more
lovely scenes but not tied together as tightly as previous issues. The
last few pages were an uncomfortable treat though... It just ogot too far
away from what was working, too deep into Wally's problems...still some
of the set pieces were gorgeous...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
David Crotty
In article <4s1o3o$m...@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca>,
Derrick Rowlandson <der...@cs.athabascau.ca> wrote:
>
>I think it will be a mockery of an Image comics title, you know big breasted
>scantily clad woman with big muscles type of thing.
>
That's what I'd look for, especially when one remembers that full page
Image version of King Mob in one of the earlier Invisibles issues.
dave
Shawn Hill
Matthew Trevor (al...@place.org) wrote:
: I'm not convinced that the dying man we're witnessing *is* "Wallace Sage".
Me neither.
: Much has been made of the pseudo-autobiographical nature of _Flex Mentallo_,
: and I'm kind of toying with the idea that "Wallace Sage" is an alternative
: Morrison, one who focused on music instead of comics. Wasn't Morrison in a
: band during his teens?
Which ties the series in with Morrison's final issue of Animal Man, where
he was one of the characters, and in a way AM's Meta-Superest-Villain
(aka his literal puppet-master). Actually, that's a lot like that great
Warner Bros. cartoon where the cartoonist is trying to erase Bugs, isn't it?
: The layers seem to go something like this: "Wallace Sage" wrote a series of
: comics, as a child, about a child, Wally Sage, who created a comic character,
: Flex Mentallo, which came to life through Wally Sage's power, too late to save
: him. Now that "Wallace Sage" is dying, he's about to bring Flex Mentallo one
: step further, again, I suspect, to late to save anyone.
Seems to me like the rock star and Flex are in the same world now.
Flex's memories are of his pre-Vertigoverse existence, and he knows that
the Fact and all his former co-horts aren't real, even though other
super-heroes and villains are real. Or something?
: The lieutenant and the Hoaxster are in the "intermediate" (or "Wallace
: Sage's") comic level, and may be instrumental in helping Flex out of that
: comic level into the "real" world (or our comic level).
Pretty confusing, huh? But then how does Rockstar meet/remember Wallace
meeting/remembering the Spectre surrogate at the end? Who's doing what
to who? Huh?
My head hurts, but in a good way. At least I'm not scared anymore (I
save that for the Invisibles!)
Shawn
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"The people that I spoke with told me you were nothing
but a faghag and a dope fiend/but the song in your eyes
is of the saddest woman I've ever seen."
---mark eitzel
sh...@fas.harvard.edu+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Austin George Loomis
I have just one question.
Y'see, I missed FLEX MENTALLO #1, somehow.
If I'd read it, would I actually understanding what the stereophonic fuck is
going on in #2 and 3, or would I still be confused, only on a higher level
and about more important things?
aTdhvaannkcse for your help.
--
Austin George Loomis, alo...@whale.st.usm.edu, is just zis guy, ya know?
No .sig today. .Sig tomorrow, there's always a .sig tomorrow.
(Apologies to Mikey "Dreamy" Inglis, and to EarthForce CDR Susan Ivanova)
Somebody's got to have some perspective around here. Sooner or later, .sig!
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Scott Simmons (JSS...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU) wrote:
: "I just wanted to talk about the comics," he says. "All those
: shitty, amazing comics ... ." Who among _Flex Mentallo_'s
: audience hasn't felt the same?
Well, since you asked... me, actually. :)
: It's why we hang out in comics
: shops, go to conventions, read newsgroups posts, and explain
: in painful detail the things our girlfriends don't give a damn
: about (all the while thanking God for their indulgence).
I'm sorry, some of us (especially hetersexual female comic fans) don't
have girlfriends. :)
I have a sort of detached appreciation for what Morrison's doing here,
but no emotional resonance, sorry.
- Elayne
--
E-Mail me, the "Firehead Head," for more info about the official ()~~
Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal, available via ##
snail mail or free online! "This replica... houses our guru, ##
Tiny Dr. Tim. Let's knock on the door and see if he's in..." _##_
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
David Crotty (dacr...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: I think Morrison is doing what Kingdom Come is trying to do in a much
: more interesting and imaginative way (all the heroes have left us).
Substitute "confusing and self-indulgent" for "interesting and
imaginative" and I agree 100%. :)
: Loved those Dark Knight references (the cover, obviously, and the hoods
: who attack the girl in the alley).
Oh yeah, always great to see rape scenes.
Sheesh...
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Mark Stephenson (mark.st...@ntc.nokia.com) wrote:
: MC Grammar wrote:
: > I thought this issue was *very* autobiographical. The man doesn't like
: > himself much, does he?
: I get the impression that the issue is autobiographical in as much as most
: of us lads can relate to it. Can't speak for you girls though.
Neither, apparently, can Morrison. :) :) :)
Marc Singer
In article <177C1B33FS...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>,
Scott Simmons <JSS...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU> wrote:
>Now for my reservations about the comment that _Flex_
>will have a more lasting effect than _KC_:
>
>While _Flex_ is certainly the more comprehensive
>examination of that central question (Where have the
>super-heroes all gone?), I doubt it will have the a
>more lasting impact on our industry than _Kingdom Come_.
>
>_KC_ has a much wider context within the genre of
>super-heroes and indeed within the comics industry itself.
>As a companion piece to _Marvels_, _KC_ helps frame the
>mythic apocalypse of super-heroes (whereas _Marvels_
>depicts a super-hero cosmogony). Between the two, we have
>a well-crafted meditation on the nature and mythology of
>the super-hero as realized in the two largest and most
>important pantheons of the 20th Century -- the Marvel
>and DC Universes.
Maybe, maybe not. While both of these projects have certainly been
hyped up as major mythologies, I don't know that either one of them really
*says* much about superheroes as pantheons. In other words, I don't see
that "meditation" anywhere. When you boil it all down, what is the sum
total of Kingdom Come's meditation on superheroes? "Image-type heroes
are bad. Superheroes should be more like the Silver Age. All these guys
are a little bit fascist." (That's the most interesting and most under-
explored.) And of course, "Superheroes will end up fighting each other."
That's really more a cliche than a meditation. (A meditation is taking
that fact and asking what it means -- as Grant Morrison asked in Animal
Man, if these heroes are the next step in evolution, what does it *mean*
for them to always fight each other?) Kingdom Come has certainly been
*hyped* as a far-reaching series, but I think it ultimately doesn't have
that much to say and thus won't have that much of an effect. Except to
inspire lots of rip-offs.
Marvels gets a little credit because a) it was completely unexpected and
didn't hyped itself full of self-importance as KC has, and b) I don't think
it was trying to *meditate* on superheroes so much as to show them from
a different perspective and put some wonder back into the waning Marvel
universe. It was concerned with building the mythology, not thinking about
it. Kingdom Come is, too, but it pretends to be thinking about it.
>_Flex_, on the other hand, is as concerned with other themes
>(art, millennium fever, reality and its appearances, sexual
>development, etc.) as it is with super-heroes. And, whether
>for better or for worse, the majority of comics readers are
>more concerned with the nature of super-heroes than with the
>nature of art.
>Maybe in the _long_ long term (say, 50 or 100 years) _Flex_
>will have the kind of canonical impact it should. I doubt
>we'll see it in the next 10 or 20 years, though.
Well, Flex won't immediately have any major effects on the industry --
it may never -- simply because not enough people will read it. (There's
no justice.) But simply because it has something more interesting to
say, I think it's already more "important" -- on its own merits as a work
of art. And frankly, Kingdom Come won't really have much of an effect
either, except to inspire still more Marvels-type stories. And to give DC
a chance to tease its readers with the ultimately unimportant question
"Will this story ever come into continuity?", the way they've done for the
past ten years with Dark Knight Returns. So I have to say that Flex, while
it may not have any *effect*, is absolutely more important for what it says.
And one of the things I like most about what it says is what it *doesn't*
say, to wit, it hasn't gotten bogged down in all this superheroes-are-
today's-mythology nonsense. (It gets bogged down in some other nonsense,
but at least it's different.) The observation that superheroes are a modern
mythology was interesting the first hundred or two hundred times, but nobody
*did* anything with it. Comics fans just like to trot it out to make
their superheroes sound meaningful -- and they can be meaningful, but
we don't need to trot out the watered-down Joseph Campbell to make them so
every time. Flex strikes out in a new direction entirely, and that alone
could eventually be a significant event. At least it makes for a good comic.
Thanks for your thought-provoking post.
Marc
Abhay Khosla
On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Scott Simmons wrote:
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.93.96070...@ionesco.math.washington.edu>
> Paul Moorehead <moor...@math.washington.edu> writes:
> >> I think Morrison is doing what Kingdom Come is trying to do in a much
> >> more interesting and imaginative way (all the heroes have left us).
> > But 'Flex Mentallo' and 'Aztek' look
> >to be, in the long run, much more satisfying. I'd be surprised if
> >'Kingdome Come' had any lasting influence. But I could see 'Flex
> >Mentallo' leaving a real mark.
> >Paul
> The comparison of _Flex Mentallo_ to _Kingdom Come_ is
> an intriguing one. Both indeed deal with the question
> of our changing perceptions of heroes -- specifically,
> super-heroes -- but they do it in very different ways.
I think I disagree already because on a gut level, I don't think Kingdom
Come is about Anything but itself. Its about comics sure, and it has a
theme about comics, but its not looking at potentialities, its looking at
Specifics. Its looking at specific books where heroes kill and are
mercenaries and extrapolating those, without looking at the potential
that those books might have. Its more about How Bad 1992 Was For COmics
than about comics(1992 chosen at random...)
I mean- does anyone really need a 4 issue prestige format title to tell
them that Image comics stink? Which between Alan Moore, Warren Ellis and
a buncha others(granted maybe not at all cylinders), it doesn't anymore?
Not great, maybe, but stink? Compared to Marvel?
Gee, I wonder if there is such a word as potentialities in real life...
> If anything, the progression of the metaphor in _Flex_
> runs against the one Waid is using in _Kingdome Come_.
Cool....
> Now for my reservations about the comment that _Flex_
> will have a more lasting effect than _KC_:
> While _Flex_ is certainly the more comprehensive
> examination of that central question (Where have the
> super-heroes all gone?), I doubt it will have the a
> more lasting impact on our industry than _Kingdom Come_.
I'll just say I disagree here. Uhm, because realyl KC at its best is
only a good story about superheros. Its not TRYING to do anything. Its
not experimenting. Its not suggesting anything. Its not opening new
ground within the genre. Its just another story. And even with
Established characters... the Golden Age suggested going back and doing
interesting historical p[ieces with the characters... what does KC
suggest?
I'm sorry, but its only a story and trying to be nothing more. Flex,
succeeding or failing, its TRYING. Its pushing at the boundaries. I'd
call it a superhero story, but its not NORMAL. Will it have this
mythical thing called impact? NO. Not at all. But neither will Kingdom
Come- we've had 50 years of great and better stories, KC isn't going to
improve the quality of writing in one go. But Flex will have showed that
the genre is capable of more than Giant Fights.
Again, potentialities... Dammit, I like that word...Flex opens em up, KC
doesn't and comfortably tells a story. That doesn't mean what KC is
doing is BAD- we all need stories. We always need stories. But its not
going to help the genre any, this story...
(See: basically, I just want to see people do interesting things with
the genre now. I mean, I can still enjoy a well-written mainstream comic
thank god, but I still want to see someone do something challenging...)
> _KC_ has a much wider context within the genre of
> super-heroes and indeed within the comics industry itself.
> As a companion piece to _Marvels_, _KC_ helps frame the
> mythic apocalypse of super-heroes (whereas _Marvels_
> depicts a super-hero cosmogony). Between the two, we have
> a well-crafted meditation on the nature and mythology of
> the super-hero as realized in the two largest and most
> important pantheons of the 20th Century -- the Marvel
> and DC Universes.
I'm not sure its clear that KC succeeds in doing that. I'd agree about
your statements in regards to Marvels(Ellis has a wonderful statement
about that in his KC review where he talks about how Marvels and Watchmen
are on opposite ends of some poles...)...but I dont' know if Kingdom Come
is a fitting ragnarok, basically. I have doubts right now. It doesn't
use all the characters. Its not definate. The armies of superheros are
too vaguely defined. The beginning of the conflict wasn't really on the
level of mistletoe and Loki's tricks and all... Its not the End of
the Earth and What Follows. Its just a Giant Superhero Fight that kills
everyone. I'm hestitant to call it a fitting apocalypse without seeing
#4. Right now... I don't feel it is...
> development, etc.) as it is with super-heroes. And, whether
> for better or for worse, the majority of comics readers are
> more concerned with the nature of super-heroes than with the
> nature of art.
But KC's theme at best is: Lets not Experiment with heroes. THat there
is a way they should act in the mainstream, and that way is not to kill,
not to have sex, not to drink, NOT to ACT HUMAN. Its not suggesting a
NEW WAY FOR THEM TO ACT. Its just saying Lets go back to what works.
ANd I agree with that theme. But to a point dammit. We need people
pushing the bounds. We need a mainstream book willing to be dark and
nasty and just like all of us. We need Flex.
Flex does suggest a new use for heroes- the same prescence that UFO's
have in the world now, the apocalyptic scary sense. If someone were to
bring that in the mainstream, it'd be interesting. Flex has opened up
the playing field...
> Maybe in the _long_ long term (say, 50 or 100 years) _Flex_
> will have the kind of canonical impact it should. I doubt
> we'll see it in the next 10 or 20 years, though.
Agreed. Next 10 years I expect a lot of painted books...If we're lucky,
maybe writers will actually start REALLY paying attention to mythology
and quit calling superheros a modern mythology and start acting like they
belive it...If KC manages to do that without doing it itself, GREAT.
Thank you, Mark Waid...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Scales
In article <4s5l77$o...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> David Crotty (dacr...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
> : Loved those Dark Knight references (the cover, obviously, and the hoods
> : who attack the girl in the alley).
>
> Oh yeah, always great to see rape scenes.
Elayne...
I think that the image of a pretty gurl being menaced is, unfortunately, fairly
stock in superhero comics. I would say that throwing in a reference to those
scenes, which I would say play up to the male fantasy of being introduced to a
girl by rescuing her from bad mans (so much easier than actually talking to
girls, you know), was completely appropriate given the topic covered in
issue 3.
I don't know, maybe it was offensive to some even so.
cc
Samuel Crider
: : more interesting and imaginative way (all the heroes have left us).
: Substitute "confusing and self-indulgent" for "interesting and
: imaginative" and I agree 100%. :)
This is always what's interesting in hearing people's different opinions.
For me, in turn, "confusing and self-indulgent" sounds like a perfect
discription of "Kingdom Come." I *don't* mean to start a flame war with
that -- it's perfectly fine with me if people like KC. We all like
different things. Works like KC and Flex serve to cast a spotlight on
those differences.
: : Loved those Dark Knight references (the cover, obviously, and the hoods
: : who attack the girl in the alley).
: Oh yeah, always great to see rape scenes.
: Sheesh...
What makes you think it was a rape scene? Your above comment makes me wonder
if, tastes aside, you might not have given Flex the reading it deserved. The
whole scene was, after all, a hallucination serving to actually make a
comment on how women are portrayed in comics -- either as victims or "bad
girls." Not a new or deep comment, no (it was only 2 panels after all), just
one of the series of stream-of-consciousness ideas that flow through the
book. It was certainly more than a bit of gratutious fan boy service.
"Flex Mentallo" *is* a boy's look at superheroes. That's... that's
obvious from the fundamental concept of Flex as a character. Flex is
literally a boy's fantasy brought to life. Look at who is telling the
story: the dying childish "Wally Sage." Everything in the book is in
his voice, seen from his point of view. No where does Grant Morrison
suggest that he's trying to present a female point of view on Flex and
superheroes.
What we are seeing in this comic is the implicit made explicit. Heck, maybe
a female *can't* "get" this comic, having never been a part of this
particular "boys' club." Maybe it's a case, to use PeeWee Herman's words:
There's a lot things you wouldn't understand. A lot of things you
couldn't understand. A lot of things... you *shouldn't* understand --
about boys and superheroes.
If one *did* want to come to understand... "Flex" has a lot to teach.
--
Samuel Lewis Crider allo...@mcs.net http://www.mcs.net/~allosaur/home.html
Anime Central: The Midwest's First Anime and Manga Convention.
http://www.mcs.net/~docangst/3w/ac/
Contact me for info on Anime Central's Fan Animation/Video Festival
Mitch Lee
>Marvels gets a little credit because a) it was completely unexpected and
>didn't hyped itself full of self-importance as KC has, and b) I don't think
>it was trying to *meditate* on superheroes so much as to show them from
>a different perspective and put some wonder back into the waning Marvel
>universe. It was concerned with building the mythology, not thinking about
>it. Kingdom Come is, too, but it pretends to be thinking about it.
Agreed. Marvels works only because the audience hadn't seen Ross'
presentation before and the sense of wonder was easier achieve.
The novelty seems to be wearing thin in Kingdom Come, which has
turned out to be one of the most boring, pretentious pieces of
shit to come down the pike in a long time. It's a bit muddled
in its philosophy: it condemns the glorification of violence in the
Image-style superheroes, and on the otherhand it's headed towards
the same glitzy, Image, slam-bang finishes between superheroes.
I'll bet there will be echoes of Alan Moore's Miracleman #15 in this.
Flex Mentallo is certainly the better work, primarily because there
seems to be a working concept that doesn't ring hollow. Unfortunately
if the enormous sales are any indication, it'll be Kingdom Come that
will be remembered as a singular work 20 years from now, while people
will only know of Flex Mentallo through the Morrisson canon.
Mitch
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Scales (gri...@enteract.com) wrote:
: In article <4s5l77$o...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: > David Crotty (dacr...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: > : Loved those Dark Knight references (the cover, obviously, and the hoods
: > : who attack the girl in the alley).
: >
: > Oh yeah, always great to see rape scenes.
: Elayne...
: I think that the image of a pretty gurl being menaced is, unfortunately, fairly
: stock in superhero comics...
: I don't know, maybe it was offensive to some even so.
You don't *know*?
Oh dear.
Well, please, let me inform you.
Stock or no stock, yes, the image is offensive to some.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Samuel Crider (allo...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: : David Crotty (dacr...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: : : more interesting and imaginative way (all the heroes have left us).
: : Substitute "confusing and self-indulgent" for "interesting and
: : imaginative" and I agree 100%. :)
: This is always what's interesting in hearing people's different opinions.
: For me, in turn, "confusing and self-indulgent" sounds like a perfect
: discription of "Kingdom Come."
Okay, I can maybe see "self-indulgent," certainly when it comes to all of
Ross' Easter eggs, but... confusing? What's confusing about KC? I think
it's complex, but the plot certainly seems rather straightforward.
FLEX MENTALLO, on the other hand, is vintage Morrison - it's playing with
all types of reality levels. I mean, this isn't a complaint, you know
he's going to do this going in. But I should think FM would be MUCH more
confusing than something like KC.
: : : Loved those Dark Knight references (the cover, obviously, and the hoods
: : : who attack the girl in the alley).
: : Oh yeah, always great to see rape scenes.
: : Sheesh...
: What makes you think it was a rape scene? Your above comment makes me wonder
: if, tastes aside, you might not have given Flex the reading it deserved.
Please don't patronize me.
I'm perfectly aware that it might not have ended as a rape scene (even
Wally Sage wonders about the ending, and posits that one possible outcome
might have been the woman overcoming her attackers), but the starting
image sure as hell felt that way to me.
: It was certainly more than a bit of gratutious fan boy service.
"More than" does not preclude the fact that it was "gratuitous fanboy"
stuff as well. As is most of this series.
: "Flex Mentallo" *is* a boy's look at superheroes.
Indeed. Which is why I can appreciate it on some levels but it has no
resonance for me emotionally. 'Cause I've never been a boy. :)
: Heck, maybe
: a female *can't* "get" this comic, having never been a part of this
: particular "boys' club." Maybe it's a case, to use PeeWee Herman's words:
: There's a lot things you wouldn't understand. A lot of things you
: couldn't understand. A lot of things... you *shouldn't* understand --
: about boys and superheroes.
Oh please. While you're at it, why don't you just pat me on the head,
give me a lollipop and suggest I go read something that won't tax my
widdow head?
David J. Snyder
In article <4s87ks$4...@panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>give me a lollipop and suggest I go read something that won't tax my
>widdow head?
Your widow head? Is there something that happenned to Steve that we should
know about?
-Dave
--
"Listen to yourself. How could you be so stupid? People don't
come back from the dead." "... the Blood Syndicate ain't over yet.
It just stopped for a while, is all."
-Dogg, Blood Syndicate #35
Samuel Crider
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: FLEX MENTALLO, on the other hand, is vintage Morrison - it's playing with
: all types of reality levels. I mean, this isn't a complaint, you know
: he's going to do this going in. But I should think FM would be MUCH more
: confusing than something like KC.
As you say, with Flex we know what we are getting into --with KC I have no
sense of where or when things are happening; I just feel like I am
being plopped from one stage scene to another while somebody supposedly
explains what's happening. I find this emotionally and intellectually
confusing.
: Please don't patronize me.
: I'm perfectly aware that it might not have ended as a rape scene (even
: Wally Sage wonders about the ending, and posits that one possible outcome
: might have been the woman overcoming her attackers), but the starting
: image sure as hell felt that way to me.
I'm not going to assume you mean anything other than what you say. You
make a comment about it being a rape scene which came across
as an attack on the scene -- a scene which actually was agreeing with the
sentiment you sarcastically expressed. That left me confused about how
exactly you were viewing the scene.
Your, not one, but three, posts each added to the impression that you had
possibility given the book only a cursory reading.
: "More than" does not preclude the fact that it was "gratuitous fanboy"
: stuff as well. As is most of this series.
Morrison is *using* these elements. The whole incident was a bit of "Wally"'s
id slipping out. Like most everything else in the book, it is meant to be
disturbing and to play mind games with the reader. Wally and Grant are
"sicking" up all these things.
I said:
: : "Flex Mentallo" *is* a boy's look at superheroes.
: Indeed. Which is why I can appreciate it on some levels but it has no
: resonance for me emotionally. 'Cause I've never been a boy. :)
: : Heck, maybe
: : a female *can't* "get" this comic, having never been a part of this
: : particular "boys' club." :
: Oh please. While you're at it, why don't you just pat me on the head,
: give me a lollipop and suggest I go read something that won't tax my
: widdow head?
Ah, somebody mentioned the word "patronizing" recently..? It rather seems
in the the two paragraphs above we are saying the same thing.
Scales
In article <4s879s$4...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> Scales (gri...@enteract.com) wrote:
> : I think that the image of a pretty gurl being menaced is,
unfortunately, fairly
> : stock in superhero comics...
> : I don't know, maybe it was offensive to some even so.
>
> You don't *know*?
I like using lots of qualifiers OK? Lots and lots. Usually. ;)
> Oh dear.
Yeesh I've been "oh dear"-ed. This gets my back up for some reason.
> Well, please, let me inform you.
I'm listening...
> Stock or no stock, yes, the image is offensive to some.
>
> - Elayne
Duly noted. For a second there I thought you were saying fiction couldn't
reference rape in any context or even comment on "rape scenes" without
offending someone. I personally saw it as largely inoffensive and even
expected in a tale whose thesis is revealed to be "Fredric Wertham was
fucking right!"
I felt in the context of a comic about super-hero comics, which was busily
cataloging and referencing images that support the idea of said comics as
"power-porn for retards", this "quote" (most recognizably from TDKR) was
appropriate and inoffensive. I don't see it as intended to thrill or
titillate, or to give Frank Quitely a chance to draw a nearly naked
woman. I don't even see it as an opportunity for (male) readers to
vicariously experience flying/swinging/racing at super-speed to the
woman's rescue, which is normally what this scene would lead to in
super-hero comics.
Well, at least the super-hero comics I remember from my youth, where
scenes such as this were not uncommon. Though in those days the woman
would've had more clothes on, and one of her menacers would've said
something like "Look lady we just want your purse," but otherwise I found
the panel pretty familiar. And not just because of TDKR.
digging the vacuum...
cc
Andrew Boer
> Flex Mentallo is certainly the better work, primarily because there
> seems to be a working concept that doesn't ring hollow. Unfortunately
> if the enormous sales are any indication, it'll be Kingdom Come that
> will be remembered as a singular work 20 years from now, while people
> will only know of Flex Mentallo through the Morrisson canon.
Seems to me, folks, that Kingdom Come is about comics. Its about
these characters that we know so well--it is postmodern, and it is
fun, and I don't think it is really trying to be more than referential
and entertaining. There's nothing particularly new about Kingdom
Come--we have certainly been here before; Alan Moore did Armageddon
and Superheroes way back in the Watchmen. But Kingdom Come is
entertaining because it is trying to be so comprehensive. I think it
is VERY similar in style to Neil's Books of Magic (and seeing Boston
Brand again reinforced this--instead of Tim Hunter we have this
pastor, but it is basically the same idea.) And no one ever accused
Neil of writing a brilliant deconstruction of DC superheroes or magic.
Only of writng a fabulous, comprehensive story. Perhaps we should be
comparing those two works instead.
Flex Mentallo, on the other hand, is NOT about comics. Flex Mentallo
is about people who read superhero comics. Morrison is methodically
going through the different ages, the conceits...everything that has
been thought about comics for the past sixty years, precisely because
we all know this litany so well. In the end, it gets us nowhere. We
can analyse and dissect these things all we want: we can tell
ourselves that we like them because they are high art, they are
postmodern; or we can tell ourselves that they are supressed
homoerotic fantasies, or whatever we like. Its about as useful an
exercise as Baudrillard in Disneyland.
Its a fools errand, trying to figure out our deal with comics.
If you don't know what Morrison is trying to do with Flex, I think its
because there is no real point. I think he is just throwing it all out
there and saying: here it all is. Work it out for yourselves. Ground
breaking work? Probably not. Its just an exegesis of the medium. But
certainly thoughtful, thought-provoking stuff.
Ground breaking work occurs when an artist USES the medium in
such a way to either make a point, or tells a story in such a way that
the point is made implicitly. MAUS. The Watchmen. The Dark Knight
Returns. V for Vendetta. Sandman.
Its a good question though. Artists often attempt to analyse and
dissect their metier. My question is, can anyone think of an example
of that kind of self-reflective work in other mediums that qualifies
as "ground breaking".
Shakespeares "The Tempest" perhaps? Though even that was
hardly his best play.
Andrew
Marc Singer
In article <grieves-1207...@kip208.austin.apple.com>,
Scales <gri...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <4s5l77$o...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
>Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
>> David Crotty (dacr...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>> : Loved those Dark Knight references (the cover, obviously, and the hoods
>> : who attack the girl in the alley).
>>
>> Oh yeah, always great to see rape scenes.
>
>scenes, which I would say play up to the male fantasy of being introduced to a
>girl by rescuing her from bad mans (so much easier than actually talking to
>girls, you know), was completely appropriate given the topic covered in
>issue 3.
Absolutely. Especially since that scene (and all the other scenes from
other comics it is meant to evoke) actually contains the sublimated sexual
element that the rest of the issue then goes on to pull out into the open
from all superhero comics. It's like Morrison has provided a test case
or example for us to see what he's talking about later. I didn't think
the comic was even *remotely* approving of the rape scene (or of comics
that use rape and threat-of-rape scenes). Nor was it approving of the
kind of woman it showed, the kind who's always showed in comics -- "That's
not a *real* girl, is it?"
>I don't know, maybe it was offensive to some even so.
Maybe it was. Maybe "Huckleberry Finn" is offensive to some too, but
neither work is exactly subtle about criticizing those offensive elements.
Marc
Carl Fink
In article <4s87ks$4...@panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
>I'm perfectly aware that it might not have ended as a rape scene (even
>Wally Sage wonders about the ending, and posits that one possible outcome
>might have been the woman overcoming her attackers), but the starting
>image sure as hell felt that way to me.
Of course it did.
Elayne, from a couple of your posts on rac.*, I get the idea that you
don't want rape *portrayed* in comics, ever. That can't be right, can
it? It would be like the old Comics Code restriction that drugs can't
even be mentioned.
Precisely *because* rape scenes have been used exploitatively in
comics, Morrison *had* to have one in _Flex_ -- it's a commentary on
comics, right? How can you object?
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Dueling Modems, Inc. http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt/
"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet
deserves the highest protection from government intrusion."
--Federal Appeals Court ruling on the so-called "Decency Act" censoring
the Internet. Full text at http://www.cdt.org/ciec/decision.html
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: In article <4s87ks$4...@panix.com>,
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >
: >I'm perfectly aware that it might not have ended as a rape scene (even
: >Wally Sage wonders about the ending, and posits that one possible outcome
: >might have been the woman overcoming her attackers), but the starting
: >image sure as hell felt that way to me.
: Of course it did.
: Elayne, from a couple of your posts on rac.*, I get the idea that you
: don't want rape *portrayed* in comics, ever.
I never said I didn't want it. I said it made me uncomfortable. Do I
not have a right to feel this way?
Then again, a lot of things Morrison writes make me feel uncomfortable.
I'm sure this is on purpose. :)
: Precisely *because* rape scenes have been used exploitatively in
: comics, Morrison *had* to have one in _Flex_ -- it's a commentary on
: comics, right? How can you object?
Hmm. I'll have to think about this one. Thanks for the theory.
Christopher Dinkins
On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, Andrew Boer wrote:
>
> > Flex Mentallo is certainly the better work, primarily because there
> > seems to be a working concept that doesn't ring hollow. Unfortunately
> > if the enormous sales are any indication, it'll be Kingdom Come that
> > will be remembered as a singular work 20 years from now, while people
> > will only know of Flex Mentallo through the Morrisson canon.
>
> Seems to me, folks, that Kingdom Come is about comics. Its about
> these characters that we know so well--it is postmodern, and it is
> fun, and I don't think it is really trying to be more than referential
> and entertaining. There's nothing particularly new about Kingdom
> Come--we have certainly been here before; Alan Moore did Armageddon
> and Superheroes way back in the Watchmen. But Kingdom Come is
> entertaining because it is trying to be so comprehensive. I think it
> is VERY similar in style to Neil's Books of Magic (and seeing Boston
> Brand again reinforced this--instead of Tim Hunter we have this
> pastor, but it is basically the same idea.) And no one ever accused
> Neil of writing a brilliant deconstruction of DC superheroes or magic.
> Only of writng a fabulous, comprehensive story. Perhaps we should be
> comparing those two works instead.
>
I don't really disagree with any of this, but I'd say that there was more
originality in the Books of Magic miniseries than in Kingdom Come. At
least, speaking personally, I didn't have the feeling of having seen
everything before that I get from Kingdom Come.
>
> Flex Mentallo, on the other hand, is NOT about comics. Flex Mentallo
> is about people who read superhero comics. Morrison is methodically
> going through the different ages, the conceits...everything that has
> been thought about comics for the past sixty years, precisely because
> we all know this litany so well. In the end, it gets us nowhere. We
> can analyse and dissect these things all we want: we can tell
> ourselves that we like them because they are high art, they are
> postmodern; or we can tell ourselves that they are supressed
> homoerotic fantasies, or whatever we like. Its about as useful an
> exercise as Baudrillard in Disneyland.
> Its a fools errand, trying to figure out our deal with comics.
> If you don't know what Morrison is trying to do with Flex, I think its
> because there is no real point. I think he is just throwing it all out
> there and saying: here it all is. Work it out for yourselves. Ground
> breaking work? Probably not. Its just an exegesis of the medium. But
> certainly thoughtful, thought-provoking stuff.
>
As Grant himself wrote, the trouble with his stories is that they seem to
build and build and build and then there's nothing.
> Ground breaking work occurs when an artist USES the medium in
> such a way to either make a point, or tells a story in such a way that
> the point is made implicitly. MAUS. The Watchmen. The Dark Knight
> Returns. V for Vendetta. Sandman.
>
I like this list, but in fairness to Grant I'd add some of his work to
this list; I think that good arguments can be made for Animal Man, Doom
Patrol, or the Invisibles.
> Its a good question though. Artists often attempt to analyse and
> dissect their metier. My question is, can anyone think of an example
> of that kind of self-reflective work in other mediums that qualifies
> as "ground breaking".
> Shakespeares "The Tempest" perhaps? Though even that was
> hardly his best play.
Hey! Them's fighting words!
But if you want another, more critically acclaimed look at
self-refectiveness in Shakespeare, look at _Othello_. The whole
Iago-as-playwright thing plays out fairly neatly. Alternatively, you
could consider the character of Archimago in _The Faerie Queene_.
_Paradise Lost_ also contains some interesting reflections on art.
--Chris
Joe Gorde
Andrew Boer (ab...@umich.edu) wrote:
: Seems to me, folks, that Kingdom Come is about comics. Its about
: these characters that we know so well--it is postmodern, and it is
ACK!!! Did anyone besides me cringe when they read this? KINGDOM COME is
*not* postmodern. Neither, I think, is FLEX MENTALLO, though perhaps that
is more debatable.
The only postmodern comic I can think of offhand is Mazzuchelli's CITY OF
GLASS, which of course was a postmodern novel first. Actually, some of
Mazzuchelli's RUBBER BLANKET stories might fit, too. I wouldn't be
surprised if I were overlooking somebody, though.
--
joeg...@umich.edu * she's got a boyfriend and she doesn't like you.
Moby
m.umd.edu>:
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution:
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: And one of the things I like most about what it says is what it *doesn't*
: say, to wit, it hasn't gotten bogged down in all this superheroes-are-
: today's-mythology nonsense. (It gets bogged down in some other nonsense,
: but at least it's different.) The observation that superheroes are a modern
: mythology was interesting the first hundred or two hundred times, but nobody
: *did* anything with it. Comics fans just like to trot it out to make
: their superheroes sound meaningful -- and they can be meaningful, but
: we don't need to trot out the watered-down Joseph Campbell to make them so
: every time.
I can't agree more with this point actually... but with every new
generation of comic readers (read: superhero comic readers), what's done
in the past becomes less present in the mind. And thus, this new "pseudo"
meaningful STATEMENT on superheroes is trotted out again... and it's
always soaked up. I can give examples, but I think it's too obvious to
bother. What I'm saying is that this is a never-ending cycle, and these
"build-up superheroes as mythic & meaningful" comics will always sell
well with the new generations, and some of the old as well. Especially if
they're told & drawn well. Thus, I think KC fits squarely into this category.
There's really nothing BAD about this, except that readers/fans
who've SEEN it all already just get disenchanted, jaded/bitter about the
superhero genre, or just ignore it and go on to new territory. Stuff like
Flex is innovative, original and thought-provoking... as evidenced by the
wonderful threads on this newsgroup. But how can Flex possibly compete
against the hype and publicity of KC, in terms of reaching its target
audience? It's damn difficult, as I'm sure there are many older comics
fans & past-superhero fans that would take to Flex, but don't realize it.
THIS is the tragedy, IMHO. All these people would be buying KC instead. :)
--
Moby
Henry Kong (hk...@unixg.ubc.ca)
Strangers In Paradise|Massive Attack|Invisibles|Sega|Virtua Fighter 2|DKR
Love & Rockets|Melanie Moore|Tricky|Details|King Mob|Salma Hayek| A D Phi
Moby
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: : Elayne, from a couple of your posts on rac.*, I get the idea that you
: : don't want rape *portrayed* in comics, ever.
: I never said I didn't want it. I said it made me uncomfortable. Do I
: not have a right to feel this way?
You certainly have a right... but that doesn't affect the scene's
significance and meaning to Morrison's analysis of boys & their
superheroes. Lots of critically important stuff in literature are
offensive to people... which has no bearing on their importance, however.
: Then again, a lot of things Morrison writes make me feel uncomfortable.
: I'm sure this is on purpose. :)
Which is one reason why you're not reading the INVISIBLES, I
presume? Too bad, that title is one of the absolute best books being
published today... I'm sure others (ie. Abhay :)) can back me up on this.
I think Morrison knew, going into Flex, that he was speaking
directly to boys and the comic-reading hobby... and that he chose to
ignore the female perspective. For reasons of storytelling clarity,
perhaps? Maybe I'm completely wrong with this one, IS he ignoring the
female perspective?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Moby (hk...@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: I think Morrison knew, going into Flex, that he was speaking
: directly to boys and the comic-reading hobby... and that he chose to
: ignore the female perspective. For reasons of storytelling clarity,
: perhaps? Maybe I'm completely wrong with this one, IS he ignoring the
: female perspective?
I believe he considers it irrelevant for purposes of telling this
particular story.
I look forward to seeing what he's going to do with the female (i.e.,
Wonder Woman's) perspective in the revamped JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA.
Christoph Koerner
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 1996 20:35:07 GMT, ab...@umich.edu (Andrew Boer) said:
>> Flex Mentallo is certainly the better work, primarily because there
>> seems to be a working concept that doesn't ring hollow. Unfortunately
>> if the enormous sales are any indication, it'll be Kingdom Come that
>> will be remembered as a singular work 20 years from now, while people
>> will only know of Flex Mentallo through the Morrisson canon.
> Seems to me, folks, that Kingdom Come is about comics. Its about
> these characters that we know so well--it is postmodern,
Please explain your use of the p-word in connection with Kingdom Come.
"Postmodern" is such an overused word, everbody means something else
by it.
> and it is
> fun, and I don't think it is really trying to be more than referential
> and entertaining. There's nothing particularly new about Kingdom
> Come--we have certainly been here before; Alan Moore did Armageddon
> and Superheroes way back in the Watchmen. But Kingdom Come is
> entertaining because it is trying to be so comprehensive.
Comprehensive with respect to what particular feature? Because it
tries to include every damn DC character ever invented? I'm pointing
this out because it's a totally different kind of comprehensiveness
that the one Watchmen possesses (which is comprehensive with regard to
content).
> I think it
> is VERY similar in style to Neil's Books of Magic (and seeing Boston
> Brand again reinforced this--instead of Tim Hunter we have this
> pastor, but it is basically the same idea.)
Both Tim Hunter and the pastor are lead around by characters that
belong to DC's mystic comunity. That's about all that BoM and KC have
in common. To call the two works similar in style because of that is a
grave exaggeration.
> And no one ever accused
> Neil of writing a brilliant deconstruction of DC superheroes or magic.
> Only of writng a fabulous, comprehensive story. Perhaps we should be
> comparing those two works instead.
Perhaps we should. Although this would lead to Alex Ross's
demystification as well as Waid's, I guess.
> Flex Mentallo, on the other hand, is NOT about comics. Flex Mentallo
> is about people who read superhero comics.
Of course it is about comics. And about the people who read them. It
_has_ to be about both because you can't discuss people reading
superhero-comics without examining the contents of those comics.
> Morrison is methodically
> going through the different ages, the conceits...everything that has
> been thought about comics for the past sixty years, precisely because
> we all know this litany so well. In the end, it gets us nowhere.
Well, of course it doesn't "get us anywhere" in the sense that at the
end there is a final, absolute statement about the human condition and
superhero-comics(-readers) in general.
If you want that, read Frederic Wertheim (sp?).
To make clear what I'm talking about: I could ask `Where did Watchmen
"get us"?' and write it off in just the same way as you write off FM.
> We
> can analyse and dissect these things all we want: we can tell
> ourselves that we like them because they are high art, they are
> postmodern; or we can tell ourselves that they are supressed
> homoerotic fantasies, or whatever we like. Its about as useful an
> exercise as Baudrillard in Disneyland.
(Mostly) crap. Where did you get the idea that FM should be "useful"?
As I said above, of course it can't be expected that it should be
possible to completely transcend human nature and (perhaps even
scientifically) "explain" to the full satisfaction of everyone why
people do one thing or another.
I'd be very much surprised if this should occur in the pages of a
four-issue mini-series (which was not even written by Alan Moore).
Your stance is certainly not a very postmodern one.
> Its a fools errand, trying to figure out our deal with comics.
To some extent, this is true (largely because trying to figure out our
deal with anything is a fool's errand). But: Morrison knows and
acknowledges that. He even incorporates it in the comic and makes it
part of its story.
> If you don't know what Morrison is trying to do with Flex, I think its
> because there is no real point. I think he is just throwing it all out
> there and saying: here it all is. Work it out for yourselves.
Terrible thing when a writer is asking the readers to think for
themselves, isn't it? But then, he does much more than that. He
presents the subject in such a way that conclusions are in reach of
the reader. But: Morrison has written FM in a way which allows for
these conclusions to be dependent on the reader. (I'm tempted to say
he's written a postmodern comic :)
> Ground
> breaking work? Probably not. Its just an exegesis of the medium. But
> certainly thoughtful, thought-provoking stuff.
A few lines above you said it all leads nowhere. Now we have
thought-provoking stuff.
As for breaking ground, I don't know of any other comic (except
perhaps the last issues of Morrison's Animal Man run) that has dealt
with the same issues as FM in the same or a similar way.
> Ground breaking work occurs when an artist USES the medium in
> such a way to either make a point, or tells a story in such a way that
> the point is made implicitly. MAUS. The Watchmen. The Dark Knight
> Returns. V for Vendetta. Sandman.
Do you really like those comics mainly because of the "points" they
make?
MAUS: Nazi Germany
Watchmen: Nuclear War/Armageddon
Dark Knight: Nuclear War/Media coverage
V: Fascism
Sandman: lots (Storytelling?)
All the "points" in question here have been dealt with before. So what
makes these books stand out? What got _my_ attention was _how_ they
were done, not _that_ they were done.
As for FM, it makes tons of points. About the nature of comics. About
the readers. About the changes that have occured in 50+ years of
publishing. FM doesn't lead to a conclusion that can be summed up in
one line and then you're done with the subject for ever, that's
right. But: the same can be said about MAUS, V, Dark Knight and
Watchmen.
As I said above, I could easily write of Watchmen as a trivial read by
saying "where does it lead to, what did it tell us - that humanity is
working toward its own extinction? What a trivial point."
> Its a good question though. Artists often attempt to analyse and
> dissect their metier. My question is, can anyone think of an example
> of that kind of self-reflective work in other mediums that qualifies
> as "ground breaking".
> Shakespeares "The Tempest" perhaps? Though even that was
> hardly his best play.
In your judgement we trust.
Christoph
--
Christoph Koerner |
chri...@pc-labor.uni-Bremen.de | "Wizard, your life force is running out."
Andrew Boer
On 14 Jul 1996 14:31:18 +0100, chri...@zarniwoop.ZAIT.Uni-Bremen.DE
(Christoph Koerner) wrote:
Christoph, I'm not sure what I did to incur such wrath, but I'll try
to respond to your point.
>
>> Seems to me, folks, that Kingdom Come is about comics. Its about
>> these characters that we know so well--it is postmodern,
>
>Please explain your use of the p-word in connection with Kingdom Come.
>"Postmodern" is such an overused word, everbody means something else
>by it.
Thats true. In another post here, I try to work out the postmodern
question, but I'll readily admit I don't have a firm grasp on the
concept.
>> and it is
>> fun, and I don't think it is really trying to be more than referential
>> and entertaining. There's nothing particularly new about Kingdom
>> Come--we have certainly been here before; Alan Moore did Armageddon
>> and Superheroes way back in the Watchmen. But Kingdom Come is
>> entertaining because it is trying to be so comprehensive.
>Comprehensive with respect to what particular feature? Because it
>tries to include every damn DC character ever invented? I'm pointing
>this out because it's a totally different kind of comprehensiveness
>that the one Watchmen possesses (which is comprehensive with regard to
>content).
Sure, thats exactly what I mean. In fact, I agree completely about the
Watchmen. KC is comprehensive simply because it deals with most all of
the D.C characters. Just as Books of Magic dealt with every Magic
using character in the D.C. Universe. BoM also had interesting things
content-wise to say about Magic in general.
I'm not saying K.C. is great, here. But it is vast and
entertaining, and lovely to look at. It is the Independence Day (the
movie) of Comics. And it will likely be remembered in the same way.
>> I think it
>> is VERY similar in style to Neil's Books of Magic (and seeing Boston
>> Brand again reinforced this--instead of Tim Hunter we have this
>> pastor, but it is basically the same idea.)
>Both Tim Hunter and the pastor are lead around by characters that
>belong to DC's mystic comunity. That's about all that BoM and KC have
>in common. To call the two works similar in style because of that is a
>grave exaggeration.
No, I wasn't referring to the Spirit. I simply meant the narrative
style: the way we have this detached spectator witnessing all of these
events transpiring. And they are both trying to be comprehensive
works (in the sense above). And they are both painted. (which is
apparently becoming the medium's association for *Realistic* comics).
And frankly, they feel similar to me.. I'm sure Waid and Ross were
inspired, at least partially, by BoM. The Boston Brand appearance
cinched that for me. (Who the hell is Boston Brand anyway.)
>
>> And no one ever accused
>> Neil of writing a brilliant deconstruction of DC superheroes or magic.
>> Only of writng a fabulous, comprehensive story. Perhaps we should be
>> comparing those two works instead.
>Perhaps we should. Although this would lead to Alex Ross's
>demystification as well as Waid's, I guess.
I don't know what you have against Ross and Waid, but don't
take it up with me. I'm not putting them on any pedestals. But I do
enjoy their work. (Especially that "so thats what that feels like"
line in KC #3. Great stuff)
>
>> Flex Mentallo, on the other hand, is NOT about comics. Flex Mentallo
>> is about people who read superhero comics.
>
>Of course it is about comics. And about the people who read them. It
>_has_ to be about both because you can't discuss people reading
>superhero-comics without examining the contents of those comics.
Well YES, it is about comics to the extent that it is about people who
read comics. But it isn't about the comic mythologies...for example,
the knowledge we know about all of these characters. And I think it
is far less about the content of comics, than say, the Watchmen. It is
much more about authorship, and the fans.
But this is all obvous and not worth arguing about.
>
>> Morrison is methodically
>> going through the different ages, the conceits...everything that has
>> been thought about comics for the past sixty years, precisely because
>> we all know this litany so well. In the end, it gets us nowhere.
>
>Well, of course it doesn't "get us anywhere" in the sense that at the
>end there is a final, absolute statement about the human condition and
>superhero-comics(-readers) in general.
>If you want that, read Frederic Wertheim (sp?).
Sigh, are you just missing my point or are you being deliberately
hostile and obtuse. I don't WANT a grand theme. I don't EXPECT a
grand theme. This is an exegesis of a medium that means a million
different things to different people. Morrison can't be expected to
work the whole thing out, and he doesn't want to.
I think that is FINE. Ok? But I don't get much out of it.
>To make clear what I'm talking about: I could ask `Where did Watchmen
>"get us"?' and write it off in just the same way as you write off FM.
Well, actually, the Watchmen did make me think about comics much
differently. I think it was truly ground breaking. Epic even. I'll
temporarily leave it to someone else to back this up.
Flex, on the other hand, is perhaps thought provoking, but
totally inconclusive.
>(Mostly) crap. Where did you get the idea that FM should be "useful"?
>As I said above, of course it can't be expected that it should be
>possible to completely transcend human nature and (perhaps even
>scientifically) "explain" to the full satisfaction of everyone why
>people do one thing or another.
>I'd be very much surprised if this should occur in the pages of a
>four-issue mini-series (which was not even written by Alan Moore).
Nor would Alan Moore try to do something so impossibly vast as
deconstruct all of comics. Because if you do that, you wind up with
Flex Mentallo. You throw everything out there, but in the end you
have no conclusion. I'm not asking for useful. I'm asking for either
1) Entertaining, or 2) Thought provoking.
On reflection, I'm not sure how thought provoking Flex really
is. When you walk away from it, there is no coherent theme, no thesis
on which to wrap your thoughts. But there are nuggets, I suppose, on
which one can build conclusions.
>
>> If you don't know what Morrison is trying to do with Flex, I think its
>> because there is no real point. I think he is just throwing it all out
>> there and saying: here it all is. Work it out for yourselves.
>Terrible thing when a writer is asking the readers to think for
>themselves, isn't it? But then, he does much more than that. He
>presents the subject in such a way that conclusions are in reach of
>the reader. But: Morrison has written FM in a way which allows for
>these conclusions to be dependent on the reader. (I'm tempted to say
>he's written a postmodern comic :)
Seems to me, the conclusions we derive from a work are ALWAYS
dependent on the reader. While I am sorry I ever brought
postmodernism into this discussion, I'd now be delighted to hear you
definition.
>> Ground
>> breaking work? Probably not. Its just an exegesis of the medium. But
>> certainly thoughtful, thought-provoking stuff.
>
>A few lines above you said it all leads nowhere. Now we have
>thought-provoking stuff.
Right. I didn't see these as mutually incompatible. But you have
begun to change my mind. Perhaps Morrison's overall lack of any
coherent theme or thesis does make Flex Mentallo devoid of
thought-provocation. But I really hesitate to go that far. I'll stick
with "its not particularly ground-breaking work", my original point.
>> Ground breaking work occurs when an artist USES the medium in
>> such a way to either make a point, or tells a story in such a way that
>> the point is made implicitly. MAUS. The Watchmen. The Dark Knight
>> Returns. V for Vendetta. Sandman.
>
>Do you really like those comics mainly because of the "points" they
>make?
Why yes, at the points they made to me. (Christoph, dear, if we keep
talking about the nature of art we are going to attract Cian's
attention and neither of us want that)
And there were MANY. I present a few.
>MAUS: Nazi Germany
Or: How a black and white comic using animals can more effectively
tell the most horrific and terrible of human catastrophe in a moving
and powerful way because we are incapable as human beings of
beginning to understand the event when put in *human* terms. We need
it one step removed to be able to understand it. And many others.
>Watchmen: Nuclear War/Armageddon
Or what it would actually be like to BE a superhero: why people put on
those costumes and flew around, and how global politics would be
effected if there were superheroes, and so many other things.
>Dark Knight: Nuclear War/Media coverage
Well, yes Media coverage. And how Heroes and villians share a
symbiotic relationship. And how dark and fascist a character like the
Batman actually might be. And many others.
>V: Fascism
Or, there is a whole side of English Conservatism that I've never
really realized--and the terrifying extent that it could be taken to.
>Sandman: lots (Storytelling?)
Agreed. Lots and lots.
>All the "points" in question here have been dealt with before. So what
>makes these books stand out? What got _my_ attention was _how_ they
>were done, not _that_ they were done.
Well yes and no. For me, the Watchmen really was the first to do what
it did (show the *real* side of comics) . As well as Dark Knight. And
Neuromancer, for that matter ( idon't know why I threw that in).
V for Vendetta, on the other hand, was in the tradition of
Orwell and perhaps should be removed as ground breaking.
As for Sandman, it was ground breaking in both what it did and
how it was done. And MAUS, I agree, was ground breaking because of HOW
it was done.
But this is all simply personal opinion.
>As for FM, it makes tons of points. About the nature of comics. About
>the readers. About the changes that have occured in 50+ years of
>publishing. FM doesn't lead to a conclusion that can be summed up in
>one line and then you're done with the subject for ever, that's
>right. But: the same can be said about MAUS, V, Dark Knight and
>Watchmen.
I disagree. I think there are tangible things that can be taken away
from all of the latter works (as I displayed above).
>As I said above, I could easily write of Watchmen as a trivial read by
>saying "where does it lead to, what did it tell us - that humanity is
>working toward its own extinction? What a trivial point."
If thats all there was, well maybe.
>> Its a good question though. Artists often attempt to analyse and
>> dissect their metier. My question is, can anyone think of an example
>> of that kind of self-reflective work in other mediums that qualifies
>> as "ground breaking".
>> Shakespeares "The Tempest" perhaps? Though even that was
>> hardly his best play.
>In your judgement we trust.
My, but you are a nasty creature, Christoph. Shall I couch my words
in more IMHO for you? Perhaps that will assuage your savage wit.
Amory Blaine
On 14 Jul 1996 05:10:43 GMT, joeg...@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu (Joe
Gorde) wrote:
>Andrew Boer (ab...@umich.edu) wrote:
>
>: Seems to me, folks, that Kingdom Come is about comics. Its about
>: these characters that we know so well--it is postmodern, and it is
>
>ACK!!! Did anyone besides me cringe when they read this? KINGDOM COME is
>*not* postmodern. Neither, I think, is FLEX MENTALLO, though perhaps that
>is more debatable.
>
Joe,
Oh dear.
To tell the truth, I took Andrew Ross' entire course on postmodernism
at Princeton, studied and read Kathy Acker, William Gibson,
Baudrillard, Derrida, and all the rest...and to tell the god's honest
truth, I still couldn't tell you exactly what makes a particular book
postmodern.
For example, somebody put Neil on the top ten postmodern
artists of the nineties list (or something) and I'm not sure why
*he's* there either.
If only Tannhauser were here to sort this all out.
But basically, I've started to lump into the general category of
postmodernism all of those deliberately self referential type books
which literally *sample* from past mediums. If you can't call
painting wonder woman as Linda Carter, and Superman as (what was his
name, Steve Reeves?) the actor from the fifties postmodern, then what
else is it. (And Batman is Gregory Peck, I'm sure of it). These are
simulcra, and that, I think, is as postmodern as anything. As for Flex
Mentallo, I agree the case is stronger. There is a Brechtian
detachment from the whole Flex book.While you are reading the comic,
you realize implicitly that it is a comic about comics. It recognizes
and deals openly with such realities as market forces, sublimated
sexual desires, etc. Again, I'm not sure what postmodernism is, but I
think it fits.
Ah, when ever I talk about postmodernism, I inevitably start spewing
bullshit. Perhaps that may be postmodernism's defining characteristic.
Anyway, I bow to your superior expertise.
Define away.
Joe Gorde
Moby (hk...@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: Which is one reason why you're not reading the INVISIBLES, I
: presume? Too bad, that title is one of the absolute best books being
: published today... I'm sure others (ie. Abhay :)) can back me up on this.
Hear, hear. Probably my favorite current ongoing monthly.
Joe Gorde
Amory-
I'm responding to your comments in (roughly) reverse order, since (I
think) I can be more coherent that way. Apologies all around if that's
weird.
Amory Blaine (Amory...@umich.edu) wrote:
: Ah, when ever I talk about postmodernism, I inevitably start spewing
: bullshit. Perhaps that may be postmodernism's defining characteristic.
: Anyway, I bow to your superior expertise.
: Define away.
You're probably right with your bullshit theory, as I'm about to attempt
to define postmodernism by simply free-associating for a while and hoping
that something coherent comes out of it. So, I'll save your "superior
expertise" comment for whoever wants to take a crack at it next.
To start, I'd call postmodern any of those deliberately
self-referential type works which are fundamentally and primarily
concerned with examining the nature of media (or, more often, one medium
in particular) and especially the building blocks and structure of those
media. I'd like to emphasize the phrase "fundamentally and primarily" in
that sentence; often, in a postmodern narrative, even traditional elements
as plot, character and setting are definitely secondary to this
investigation; frequently they are eventually completely pushed aside (or
undercut) by the end of the work.
: As for Flex
: Mentallo, I agree the case is stronger. There is a Brechtian
: detachment from the whole Flex book.
You're right, and I think I might be changing my mind on FLEX. Get back
to me after #4. :)
: But basically, I've started to lump into the general category of
: postmodernism all of those deliberately self referential type books
: which literally *sample* from past mediums. If you can't call
: painting wonder woman as Linda Carter, and Superman as (what was his
: name, Steve Reeves?) the actor from the fifties postmodern, then what
: else is it. (And Batman is Gregory Peck, I'm sure of it).
It's George Reeves. See, I don't think sampling from other media is
enough, otherwise we'd have to apply the "postmodern" label to the
Micheline-McFarlane run of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN because of all those damn
Felix the Cat cameos. If KINGDOM COME provided some commentary on the
relationship between television and comics, for example, then maybe we'd
have an argument. But I don't think empty other-media references qualify
by themselves. Fundamentally, I don't think KINGDOM COME concerns itself
one iota with examining the *language* of comics (or any other medium),
and that's why calling it "postmodern" rubs me wrong.
: For example, somebody put Neil on the top ten postmodern
: artists of the nineties list (or something) and I'm not sure why
: *he's* there either.
Neil Gaiman? Hm. Probably because whoever made up the list was confusing
"postmodern" as a synonym for "hip", a mistake that more and more people
seem to be making these days.
: Oh dear.
Yeah, I agree. Pretty big can of worms, there.
MC Grammar
> I think Morrison knew, going into Flex, that he was speaking
>directly to boys and the comic-reading hobby... and that he chose to
>ignore the female perspective. For reasons of storytelling clarity,
>perhaps? Maybe I'm completely wrong with this one, IS he ignoring the
>female perspective?
If we assume that this story has any sort of autobiographical basis, which
is a safe bet given that it's written by Morrison, he's almost certainly
ignoring the female perspective. Why? Because, to paraphrase Elayne, he's
never been a girl. (Although he likes to drop hints that he's given it a
try.) He's writing about how reading comics helped warp his mind growing
up, including all the mixed messages they sent him about his own
sexuality. I'm not a boy, I didn't start reading comics regularly until
college, and I've never been all that interested in superheroes, but I
thought he did a wonderful job of showing what it's like to be a confused
kid who uses his fantasy life as a shield against reality. It *did* have
emotional resonance for me. Much more than anything in Kingdom Come,
certainly.
As for the "rape" scene, it didn't particularly offend me. I've read Dark
Knight Returns, I recognized the reference, and that was it. The whole
scene's a cliche, and Morrison was treating it as such. ("That's not a
real girl, is it?" No, son, you've just taken way too many drugs.)
Jill
Abhay Khosla
> : I never said I didn't want it. I said it made me uncomfortable. Do I
> : not have a right to feel this way?
No. Geez, I just hope you're not alone.
I don't know. All of Flex #3 made me uncomfortable. Still dug
it...(Still didn't flow as well as #2 or #1, shame that...)
> Which is one reason why you're not reading the INVISIBLES, I
> presume? Too bad, that title is one of the absolute best books being
> published today... I'm sure others (ie. Abhay :)) can back me up on this.
Eeek! This is getting out of hand... Uhm, yeah, its great. It may not
be everyone's cup of tea, but it is everyone interesting's cup of tea-
is that a neutral statement? No? Uhm... well screw it, its great.
(Balanced Counterpoint: Its had its weak issues... uhm... the very first
all Dane issue had some nice bits but overall had problems. The
Industrial Revolution was neither Industrial nor a Revolution? Discuss...)
I froth at the mouth about the book THAT much. Yeah, I guess I knew
that but thanks for reminding me...
> I think Morrison knew, going into Flex, that he was speaking
> directly to boys and the comic-reading hobby... and that he chose to
> ignore the female perspective. For reasons of storytelling clarity,
> perhaps? Maybe I'm completely wrong with this one, IS he ignoring the
> female perspective?
I think he is. The problem is ... comics are kinda a boy's club. I
mean- isn't that why we have a Friends of Lulu type group anyway, just to
hopefully get it to be less so? And since Flex is partially about
growing up with comics, it just makes sense to me thats the way it is.
Maybe I'm just too Pro-Morrison(its not my FAULT. I didn't even LIKE my
first Doom Patrol issue(well it was the very last one in that whole
Pentagon arc which wasn't a really good jumping on point...))
But out of curiosity, does anyone exactly know what the female
perspective that he's ignoring is? Is someone out there hovering over
the book with a HighLiter saying "No, no, no, superheros aren't about
p******, they're about v*****'s, dammit."
Scary image...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Avram Grumer
In article <4s879s$4...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Scales (gri...@enteract.com) wrote:
>> In article <4s5l77$o...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
>> Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>>> Oh yeah, always great to see rape scenes.
>>
>> I think that the image of a pretty gurl being menaced
>> is, unfortunately, fairly stock in superhero comics...
>> I don't know, maybe it was offensive to some even so.
>
>Stock or no stock, yes, the image is offensive to some.
Elayne, I'm not particularly fond of fistfights or gunplay, either, but
that doesn't mean that I find all portrayals of such automatically
offensive. Much less the mere _suggestion_ that one such _might_ have
taken place _off-panel_.
But you're right, it is probably offensive to some. But then, a woman
showing her elbows, knees, or face is offensive to some people.
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.users.interport.net/~avram Work: agr...@crossover.com
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, and
you drive up the price of bait and tackle, and disrupt the local ecosystem.
Avram Grumer
In article <4s9ohf$p...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
>
>> Elayne, from a couple of your posts on rac.*, I get the idea that you
>> don't want rape *portrayed* in comics, ever.
>
>I never said I didn't want it. I said it made me uncomfortable. Do I
>not have a right to feel this way?
Your initial statement on this matter seemed, to me, to be an expression
of disdain, as if you were dismissing the comic (at least partly) because
it had a rape scene in it (which it actually didn't).
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.users.interport.net/~avram Work: agr...@crossover.com
When crimes are outlawed, only outlaws will commit crimes.
Marc Singer
In article <31e80879...@news.concentric.net>,
Andrew Boer <ab...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>Seems to me, folks, that Kingdom Come is about comics. Its about
>these characters that we know so well--it is postmodern, and it is
>and entertaining.
Like Joe Gorde, I cringed when I read "postmodern." And like everyone
else with an opinion on the subject, I can't really define "postmodern"
either. :)
I basically get the feeling that if KC is postmodern, it is only postmodern
in the most easy and shallow ways -- i.e., it makes some self-reflective
comments on its genre (but only very, very simple ones) and it includes a
few collages or clips from other sources. While this might make it
minimally postmodern, that isn't necessarily a positive quality. Several
years ago, a film critic named Dana Polan wrote a *great* article about
how Brechtian ideas (and other things we would now call postmodern without
any hesitation, things like self-reflexivity or breaking the fourth wall)
are frequently used to embrace the viewer and not alienate her, to confirm
the cliches and not criticize them, to fool viewers into thinking they
are so hip and self-aware that they are *willingly allowing themselves*
to be fooled -- but they're aware of it, so that's okay. (God, this is
rambling.) The general point was that postmodern techniques may be used
in very non-postmodern ways. The point that I think is even more relevant
today is that postmodern is usually associated with "hip" or "rebellious"
and of course "intellectually stimulating" -- but none of those associations
are necessarily true.
So yes, KC might well be postmodern. Even so, it probably isn't postmodern
in any truly interesting or engaging way. Just being this weak, watered-
down kind of postmodern doesn't necessarily validate it any more.
>And no one ever accused
>Neil of writing a brilliant deconstruction of DC superheroes or magic.
>Only of writng a fabulous, comprehensive story. Perhaps we should be
>comparing those two works instead.
There's one area where the two don't quite compare, though; Kingdom Come
is indeed being hyped as a brilliant deconstruction (or "reconstruction"...
shudder) of superheroes. Worst of all, it even hypes *itself* as important;
all those damn Biblical portents come to mind as the worst offenders, but
they aren't the only ones. So it is valid, indeed important, to say that
Kingdom Come isn't a bold new take or an insightful commentary, because that
really is what it claims to be.
>Flex Mentallo, on the other hand, is NOT about comics. Flex Mentallo
>is about people who read superhero comics.
Nope, no way. It's about both (and more besides). Notice how each issue
has directly addressed the content of comics of different ages... not just
the people reading those comics, but the comics themselves. It gives us
little bits about sidekicks, hero teams, sex, everyman secret identities.
One page in issue #2 read as a thesis on the bizarre transformations of
the Silver Age Superman and what they signified. It's about the comics
themselves, as well as those reading them. Saying it's not seems to
be a gross oversimplification.
>In the end, it gets us nowhere. We
>can analyse and dissect these things all we want: we can tell
>ourselves that we like them because they are high art, they are
>postmodern; or we can tell ourselves that they are supressed
>homoerotic fantasies, or whatever we like. Its about as useful an
>exercise as Baudrillard in Disneyland.
> Its a fools errand, trying to figure out our deal with comics.
>If you don't know what Morrison is trying to do with Flex, I think its
>because there is no real point. I think he is just throwing it all out
>there and saying: here it all is. Work it out for yourselves. Ground
>breaking work? Probably not. Its just an exegesis of the medium. But
>certainly thoughtful, thought-provoking stuff.
Just because there is no one easy answer -- or no one answer, period --
doesn't mean there's no point to pondering the question. Ultimately,
a long meditation on an important question (like "what's the importance of/
obsession with superheroes in our apocalyptic age?") can have much more
of a 'point' than a definitive answer to a really easy question (like "which
is better, Image characters or the Silver Age characters who are published
by the company that is bringing you this question?").
> Ground breaking work occurs when an artist USES the medium in
>such a way to either make a point, or tells a story in such a way that
>the point is made implicitly. MAUS. The Watchmen. The Dark Knight
>Returns. V for Vendetta. Sandman.
Frankly, I think Flex qualifies right along with them. But the medium
Morrison is using isn't so much comic book art (which Maus does) or comic
book writing (which Sandman does) as comic book *continuity* and *history*.
In a way, it's a much more challenging effort, because he's working in
something that's completely intangible and exists only in that strange
nexus between the sum total of all stories in a comics universe. (And just
to make it harder, he's practically inventing his own continuity instead
of working in an existing one.)
>Its a good question though. Artists often attempt to analyse and
>dissect their metier. My question is, can anyone think of an example
>of that kind of self-reflective work in other mediums that qualifies
>as "ground breaking".
> Shakespeares "The Tempest" perhaps? Though even that was
>hardly his best play.
Hamlet. A self-reflexive revenge play, and one even more critical of
its own genre than Morrison is of superhero comics.
Loads of films, from "Citizen Kane" to Hitchcock to Scorsese.
In poetry, John Donne.
In the novel, Henry Fielding and Laurence Sterne.
Marc
Todd Morman
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>
> Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
> : Elayne, from a couple of your posts on rac.*, I get the idea that
> : you don't want rape *portrayed* in comics, ever.
>
> I never said I didn't want it. I said it made me uncomfortable. Do
> I not have a right to feel this way?
That's a bit disingenuous, Elayne. Your original comment ("Oh yeah,
always great to see rape scenes. Sheesh.") wasn't clear at all, and
was way dismissive. It gave Morrison very little credit for any
consciousness about rape/feminist issues, which just doesn't ring true
for me.
But I do see your point about Flex being a (mostly) boy's book. I was
glad Morrison bothered to include some obvious queer stuff, but this
is clearly a straight guy's highly personal look at comics.
That said, I have to ask if anyone can tell me how on earth I can get
hold of Flex Mentallo #1. I stupidly missed it when it flew through my
local store (in tiny numbers), and am dying to see a copy. Jumping in
with #2 and #3 has been fun (I love the multilayered realities, and
really appreciate comics that actually confuse me), but I really want
a copy of the first issue. Is it available at all from DC? The stores
around here are telling me I'm probably out of luck; were the advance
orders so low that the print run was too small? Any help getting a
copy would be much appreciated; hell, I'll trade old Sandmans if I
have to.
todd this series is one of the best-looking and most fun comics I've
seen in ages morman
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, m...@elaine43.Stanford.EDU (Mitch Lee) says:
>In article <4s5qtg$i...@rac4.wam.umd.edu> ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>
> >Marvels gets a little credit because a) it was completely unexpected and
> >didn't hyped itself full of self-importance as KC has, and b) I don't think
> >it was trying to *meditate* on superheroes so much as to show them from
> >a different perspective and put some wonder back into the waning Marvel
> >universe. It was concerned with building the mythology, not thinking about
> >it. Kingdom Come is, too, but it pretends to be thinking about it.
>
> Agreed. Marvels works only because the audience hadn't seen Ross'
> presentation before and the sense of wonder was easier achieve.
> The novelty seems to be wearing thin in Kingdom Come, which has
> turned out to be one of the most boring, pretentious pieces of
> shit to come down the pike in a long time. It's a bit muddled
> in its philosophy: it condemns the glorification of violence in the
> Image-style superheroes, and on the otherhand it's headed towards
> the same glitzy, Image, slam-bang finishes between superheroes.
> I'll bet there will be echoes of Alan Moore's Miracleman #15 in this.
Is it really a condemnation of Image style heroes? The "Good-guys" are
as bad as the "Image-crew", so your simple comparison doesn't seem to
work in such a clear-cut manner.
-Chris
--
====Ibis the Invincible - cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu===========
"You're a swell guy Cosmic Boy...but I'd sure hate to meet some of
your primeval ancestors in a Dark Alley!" -Sun Boy to Cosmic boy on seeing
the results of the Ancestor-Visualizer Machine in ADVENTURE COMICS #328
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:
>In article <177C1B33FS...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>,
>Scott Simmons <JSS...@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU> wrote:
>>Now for my reservations about the comment that _Flex_
>>will have a more lasting effect than _KC_:
>>
>>While _Flex_ is certainly the more comprehensive
>>examination of that central question (Where have the
>>super-heroes all gone?), I doubt it will have the a
>>more lasting impact on our industry than _Kingdom Come_.
>>
>>_KC_ has a much wider context within the genre of
>>super-heroes and indeed within the comics industry itself.
>>As a companion piece to _Marvels_, _KC_ helps frame the
>>mythic apocalypse of super-heroes (whereas _Marvels_
>>depicts a super-hero cosmogony). Between the two, we have
>>a well-crafted meditation on the nature and mythology of
>>the super-hero as realized in the two largest and most
>>important pantheons of the 20th Century -- the Marvel
>>and DC Universes.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. While both of these projects have certainly been
>hyped up as major mythologies, I don't know that either one of them really
>*says* much about superheroes as pantheons. In other words, I don't see
>that "meditation" anywhere. When you boil it all down, what is the sum
>total of Kingdom Come's meditation on superheroes? "Image-type heroes
>are bad. Superheroes should be more like the Silver Age. All these guys
>are a little bit fascist."
I think you are missing the point in KC that _all_ the heroes seem to be
fascist. You say that it is an Image characters are bad, but in fact the
Silver Agers are just as bad.
KC is about the notion of protection of the innocence, stopping crime,
individuals rights, does the ends justify the means. Or doe superheroes
really affect anything?
Or look at it this way: The heroes came, then the villians, then the
heroes killed off the villians, and in turn became villians themselves.
Its the whole idea of where is the line drawn between justice and rights,
between right and wrong and the fact that there is an increasingly grey
scale between them.
>>_Flex_, on the other hand, is as concerned with other themes
>>(art, millennium fever, reality and its appearances, sexual
>>development, etc.) as it is with super-heroes. And, whether
>>for better or for worse, the majority of comics readers are
>>more concerned with the nature of super-heroes than with the
>>nature of art.
>
>>Maybe in the _long_ long term (say, 50 or 100 years) _Flex_
>>will have the kind of canonical impact it should. I doubt
>>we'll see it in the next 10 or 20 years, though.
>
>Well, Flex won't immediately have any major effects on the industry --
>it may never -- simply because not enough people will read it. (There's
>no justice.) But simply because it has something more interesting to
>say, I think it's already more "important" -- on its own merits as a work
>of art. And frankly, Kingdom Come won't really have much of an effect
>either, except to inspire still more Marvels-type stories. And to give DC
>a chance to tease its readers with the ultimately unimportant question
>"Will this story ever come into continuity?", the way they've done for the
>past ten years with Dark Knight Returns. So I have to say that Flex, while
>it may not have any *effect*, is absolutely more important for what it says.
You may have said it elsewhere [I didn't see it on this message], so
what do you think Flex is saying and how is it more important than KC?
You talk about it and how its direction is different and more original
than KC but you never state it; so what do you think it is?
[This isn't a condemnation, but I'm curious and I think that stating it
makes your argument stronger...]
Andrew Boer
On 15 Jul 1996 15:06:08 -0400, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
In response to Mark and Joe's Posts...
Oh, first of all, Amory Blaine, ces't moi. I inadvertantly left my
pseudonym on Agent.
So at least there aren't THAT many Michiganders running around
rac.vertigo.
Ok, on to postmodernism, KC, and Flex
>>Seems to me, folks, that Kingdom Come is about comics. Its about
>>these characters that we know so well--it is postmodern, and it is
>>fun, and I don't think it is really trying to be more than referential
>>and entertaining.
>
>Like Joe Gorde, I cringed when I read "postmodern." And like everyone
>else with an opinion on the subject, I can't really define "postmodern"
>either. :)
>
>I basically get the feeling that if KC is postmodern, it is only postmodern
>in the most easy and shallow ways -- i.e., it makes some self-reflective
>comments on its genre (but only very, very simple ones) and it includes a
>few collages or clips from other sources. While this might make it
>minimally postmodern, that isn't necessarily a positive quality. Several
>years ago, a film critic named Dana Polan wrote a *great* article about
>how Brechtian ideas (and other things we would now call postmodern without
>any hesitation, things like self-reflexivity or breaking the fourth wall)
>are frequently used to embrace the viewer and not alienate her, to confirm
>the cliches and not criticize them, to fool viewers into thinking they
>are so hip and self-aware that they are *willingly allowing themselves*
>to be fooled -- but they're aware of it, so that's okay. (God, this is
>rambling.)
But very interesting. Brecht, if I'm correct, wanted to use this self
awareness (by, say, watching a play in a theatre while smoking, with
the lights on in the audience) to create unease. To alienate, if you
will. But we would agree, wouldn't we, that, say making the Gulag in
K.C. resemble the Legion of Doom (I just noticed this on my reread
last night...I'm sure it has been mentioned in other groups ad
infinitem, but I was excited nonetheless for racv show-and-tell) bring
us *into* the work.
But if I read you correctly, the truly postmodern work has to
not only be referential, and well versed in the subject, but also
cynically detached. Alienated and alienating, like Kathy Acker, or
somesuch.
If we use this definition, I'm guessing that Flex Mentallo is
as postmodern a comic as we have seen. And I'd have to agree with you
regarding Kingdom Come as well (as failing in this regard).
Unless, of course, you view Kingdom Come as an allegory for
the failing comic medium itself. To wit: The nineties saw an explosion
of comics and heroes...to the point where new #1 issues were coming
out every month, and even the most devoted collector couldn't hope to
keep up with all of the books. The result, as Karen Berger pointed out
in the latest On the Ledge, is that Comic books are dying. Sales have
dropped. D.C. and Marvel are no exceptions. They had to kill off
Superman and make Spiderman a clone just to stay afloat. And even as
Superman goes into retirement in K.C., I think many people walked away
from the comic industry entirely. (In fact, after Sandman stopped, I
was tempted to myself.) In addition, the deconstruction of the
characters in the 80's also affected sales. Hard to be excited by a
plain old Superman or Batman comic after Miller, Morrison, Moore,
Veitch, et all had had their way with them.
Perhaps there is something to this: the proliferation of new
heroes (and the lack of moral foundation that Superman complains of in
the Image crop could also be equated to a lack of historical
tradition. We know where the old heroes stand, for example. I couldn't
tell you the first thing about the W.I.L.D.C.A.T.S) leading to the
Armageddon of the comics industry. I don't think it is as simple, as
you say later:
>(like "which
>is better, Image characters or the Silver Age characters who are published
>by the company that is bringing you this question?").
And I think that the television and film references are an important
and interesting part of that picture.
But I think it also depends on your reference point. All of the other
posters here view K.C. as *trying* to be this era defining piece. As
you yourself pointed out....
>There's one area where the two don't quite compare, though; Kingdom Come
>is indeed being hyped as a brilliant deconstruction (or "reconstruction"...
>shudder) of superheroes.
You apparently know something about Ross and Waid that I do not..
I'm just looking at the work for what it is.
>So yes, KC might well be postmodern. Even so, it probably isn't postmodern
>in any truly interesting or engaging way. Just being this weak, watered-
>down kind of postmodern doesn't necessarily validate it any more.
I mostly agree with you. Perhaps I'm finding more meaning in K.C. than
I should. Or perhaps that meaning is simply uninteresting to the jaded
folks of rac.vertigo.
> Worst of all, it even hypes *itself* as important;
>all those damn Biblical portents come to mind as the worst offenders, but
>they aren't the only ones. So it is valid, indeed important, to say that
>Kingdom Come isn't a bold new take or an insightful commentary, because that
>really is what it claims to be.
I'm not sure if this is a valid criticism. It seems you are attacking
KC for setting its sights too high.
Now, as to Flex...
I think part of my disappointment with Flex was engendered by issue 3.
I was hoping to see Morrison start to tie things together, but instead
we simply got more exposition.
>Frankly, I think Flex qualifies right along with them. But the medium
>Morrison is using isn't so much comic book art (which Maus does) or comic
>book writing (which Sandman does) as comic book *continuity* and *history*.
>In a way, it's a much more challenging effort, because he's working in
>something that's completely intangible and exists only in that strange
>nexus between the sum total of all stories in a comics universe. (And just
>to make it harder, he's practically inventing his own continuity instead
>of working in an existing one.)
To use your criticism, perhaps it is Morrison who is setting his
sights too high. Of course, Flex #4 may redeem it all.
Moby
Abhay Khosla (akh...@umich.edu) wrote:
: > Which is one reason why you're not reading the INVISIBLES, I
: > presume? Too bad, that title is one of the absolute best books being
: > published today... I'm sure others (ie. Abhay :)) can back me up on this.
: Eeek! This is getting out of hand... Uhm, yeah, its great. It may not
: be everyone's cup of tea, but it is everyone interesting's cup of tea-
: is that a neutral statement? No? Uhm... well screw it, its great.
: I froth at the mouth about the book THAT much. Yeah, I guess I knew
: that but thanks for reminding me...
The INVISIBLES truly is a book that "speaks to me". That sounds
corny, but Morrison's work in general has a very strong resonance for me.
Taken with ANIMAL MAN and DOOM PATROL, Morrison has been the most
influential and interesting writer to me for a long time, since the
golden years of '84-'86. :) He's the ONLY writer now (within comics AND
without) that I'll follow anywhere... I'll read any of his new stuff,
even if it sounds unappealing initially. Like Aztek. :)
: But out of curiosity, does anyone exactly know what the female
: perspective that he's ignoring is? Is someone out there hovering over
: the book with a HighLiter saying "No, no, no, superheros aren't about
: p******, they're about v*****'s, dammit."
This was going to be my question: "What IS the female perspective
on comics and superheroes?" None of the girls I know can answer this
question, they don't know what superheroes are. :)
Scott Simmons
In article <31eb238e....@news.itd.umich.edu>
ab...@umich.edu (Andrew Boer) writes:
>On 15 Jul 1996 15:06:08 -0400, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
>
>>
>> a film critic named Dana Polan wrote a *great* article about
>>how Brechtian ideas (and other things we would now call postmodern without
>>any hesitation, things like self-reflexivity or breaking the fourth wall)
>>are frequently used to embrace the viewer and not alienate her, to confirm
>>the cliches and not criticize them, to fool viewers into thinking they
>>are so hip and self-aware that they are *willingly allowing themselves*
>>to be fooled -- but they're aware of it, so that's okay. (God, this is
>>rambling.)
>But very interesting. Brecht, if I'm correct, wanted to use this self
>awareness (by, say, watching a play in a theatre while smoking, with
>the lights on in the audience) to create unease. To alienate, if you
>will.
Hope no one got lost in my over-quoting. I rely on this
block of text to point out that it's an exact description
of Morrison's artistic triumph in _Animal Man_. Therein
he uses postmodern detachment to craft a metafiction that
affects us not only intellectually but emotionally as well.
He uses metafiction to tell us about the author, about the
medium, and about the "real world" that the fiction exists
within. In other words, he makes the audience aware of the
conceits in order to draw us into the story and give it a
powerful emotional resonance that would otherwise have been
lost. _Animal Man_ embraces rather than alienates.
The same thing seems to be going on in _Flex Mentallo_
This time around, though, Morrison has given us Wally Sage,
who has his own brand of detachment for the audience to
identify with. Through Sage, Morrison involves us in the
world that the character (Wally Sage) feels so detached from.
Marc Singer says it wonderfully in the post I've quoted above.
I'm just here to remind everyone that Morrison's treading
familiar ground -- and that he left quite a mark the last time
he passed through.
One more quoted section. Please indulge me:
********************************
> But if I read you correctly, the truly postmodern work has to
>not only be referential, and well versed in the subject, but also
>cynically detached. Alienated and alienating, like Kathy Acker, or
>somesuch.
> If we use this definition, I'm guessing that Flex Mentallo is
>as postmodern a comic as we have seen. And I'd have to agree with you
>regarding Kingdom Come as well (as failing in this regard).
In _Flex_, Morrison gives us both alienating and embracing. Wally
Sage, through identification with the audience (or at least a large
chunk of it who have similar experiences -- though I think audience
identification goes much further than having similar biographies),
draws us into the world of _Flex_ while, at the same time, emphasizes
our detachment from that strange, alien world.
(I have never seen dependent clauses more thoroughly abused than
in my previous sentence.)
And finally a comment to Marc Singer:
**************************************
>> But the medium
>>Morrison is using isn't so much comic book art (which Maus does) or comic
>>book writing (which Sandman does) as comic book *continuity* and *history*.
>>In a way, it's a much more challenging effort, because he's working in
>>something that's completely intangible and exists only in that strange
>>nexus between the sum total of all stories in a comics universe. (And just
>>to make it harder, he's practically inventing his own continuity instead
>>of working in an existing one.)
A damn fine observation, well worth thinking about. Thanks for posting it.
-- J. Scott Simmons,
alien at large
Simmons...@sc.edu
Moby
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: I look forward to seeing what he's going to do with the female (i.e.,
: Wonder Woman's) perspective in the revamped JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA.
Or you can read some back issues of the INVISIBLES, where Morrison
spotlights a few issues on the female members of the group. I'd say
that's from a female perspective; as for if they were done WELL, that's a
different story. :)
P.S. Okay, I'll stop plugging the INVISIBLES now. Really.
Marc Singer
In article <4se0r1$8...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>,
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8 <cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:
>>Maybe, maybe not. While both of these projects have certainly been
>>hyped up as major mythologies, I don't know that either one of them really
>>*says* much about superheroes as pantheons. In other words, I don't see
>>that "meditation" anywhere. When you boil it all down, what is the sum
>>total of Kingdom Come's meditation on superheroes? "Image-type heroes
>>are bad. Superheroes should be more like the Silver Age. All these guys
>>are a little bit fascist."
>
>I think you are missing the point in KC that _all_ the heroes seem to be
>fascist. You say that it is an Image characters are bad, but in fact the
>Silver Agers are just as bad.
Actually, when I said "all these guys," I meant the Silver Agers as well
as the new heroes. Though looking back, I can see how it reads the other
way.
At any rate, the implication that all superheroes drift towards fascism
is interesting, but Kingdom Come has done very little with it so far --
certainly not as much as, say, Watchmen did.
>Its the whole idea of where is the line drawn between justice and rights,
>between right and wrong and the fact that there is an increasingly grey
>scale between them.
Yes, but in my opinion, this interesting theme is hardly touched in the
series. It's more concerned with "which side will win" rather than asking
if any side *should* win. And of course, it seems most concerned with
"how many references can we cram in without explaining them?"
>>Well, Flex won't immediately have any major effects on the industry --
>>it may never -- simply because not enough people will read it. (There's
>>no justice.) But simply because it has something more interesting to
>>say, I think it's already more "important" -- on its own merits as a work
>>of art. And frankly, Kingdom Come won't really have much of an effect
>>either, except to inspire still more Marvels-type stories. And to give DC
>>a chance to tease its readers with the ultimately unimportant question
>>"Will this story ever come into continuity?", the way they've done for the
>>past ten years with Dark Knight Returns. So I have to say that Flex, while
>>it may not have any *effect*, is absolutely more important for what it says.
>
>You may have said it elsewhere [I didn't see it on this message], so
>what do you think Flex is saying and how is it more important than KC?
>You talk about it and how its direction is different and more original
>than KC but you never state it; so what do you think it is?
>[This isn't a condemnation, but I'm curious and I think that stating it
>makes your argument stronger...]
So it would. I think Flex is about the history of superhero comics --
and not just declaring the past was better, not at all, but rather "decoding"
what all the different cliches and icons of superhero comics actually meant.
When the series is at its best, it simultaneously provides reasons why
superheroes are important (symbols of hope in a charged, apocalyptic era,
indicators of cultural change) *and* exposes some of the most important
unquestioned assumptions (superheroes are actually all about sex, etc.).
It also looks at the people who read the comics -- or one stereotype of
them, anyway, but an accurate stereotype -- and gets into *why* they love
superheroes. (I really should say why *we* love superheroes, shouldn't I?)
It's examining everything in and around the superhero comic, everything
Kingdom Come uses and never thinks to question, and for that reason alone
I feel it's more interesting. Furthermore, Flex Mentallo communicates its
story in more daring ways, with all sorts of mutable and interlinked levels
of "reality" that constantly surprise the reader. At its worst it can be
a very confusing mess, but I think it's at its best much more often.
I hope that clears things up a little.
Marc
Marc Singer
In article <31eb238e....@news.itd.umich.edu>,
A perfect example. Polan's example was the highly self-reflexive but very
non-alienating Warner Brothers classic, "Duck Amuck." Both use postmodern
techniques to get the viewers to sew themselves into the work, rather
than to get them thinking as Brecht would wish.
> But if I read you correctly, the truly postmodern work has to
>not only be referential, and well versed in the subject, but also
>cynically detached. Alienated and alienating, like Kathy Acker, or
>somesuch.
Well, I'm not really insisting that a work has to be detached or cynical
to be postmodern... if anything, I'm saying that we associate "postmodern"
with "cynical, detached, and intellectual" when if anything, lots of post-
modern works (like "Duck Amuck" and perhaps KC) just try to bring the viewer
in unquestioningly. So, KC might be postmodern, but only in a way that
*I* find unappealing. (It would also only be very mildly postmodern, in
comparison to something like Flex Mentallo which examines its own
structure and genre much more radically.)
> If we use this definition, I'm guessing that Flex Mentallo is
>as postmodern a comic as we have seen. And I'd have to agree with you
>regarding Kingdom Come as well (as failing in this regard).
I'd say their success or failure depends on what they do with those pomo
techniques -- and what they do is why I'm enjoying Flex more. Cynicism
alone isn't a prerequisite for postmodernism or a guarantee of success.
(And in some ways, Flex is quite gentle and sympathetic towards the comics
and readers it's prying apart...)
> Unless, of course, you view Kingdom Come as an allegory for
>the failing comic medium itself.
[Allegory follows.] While some aspects of this are pretty obviously true,
like the proliferation of new heroes as a statement on Image-type heroics,
I don't know if simply being or containing an allegory really saves Kingdom
Come. It's still a very *simple* allegory, much simpler than the actual
situation. (Notice how DC cleverly conceals its own role in the comics
disintegration by not showing any of *their* dark, violent heroes like
Azrael.) And it doesn't quite follow through the whole story, as I doubt
Waid and Ross think the solution to comics' woes is to have all the companies
fight each other. The allegory is only used when it's easy and untroubling,
and dropped when it leads to more problematic areas (like the fact that all
the new heroes who must be stomped are multicultural, and all the old ones
who'll do the stomping are white).
> I don't think it is as simple, as
>you say later:
>>(like "which
>>is better, Image characters or the Silver Age characters who are published
>>by the company that is bringing you this question?").
It's not that simple, but a big part of the story is DC picking on a
certain trend in comics while conveniently forgetting their own role in it.
> And I think that the television and film references are an important
>and interesting part of that picture.
But how important are they, ultimately? Is there really any important
purpose to including the Monkees or Bjork? They're fun, but I wouldn't
say they make Kingdom Come a quality story on their own, even if they do
make it postmodern.
The most reference in the story are, of course, the comics references. And
those too, while fun, rarely add any meaning to the story. In fact (as I
argued for far too long and far too bitterly on rec.arts.comics.dc.universe)
I think they are served as a *substitute* for meaning, Ross's illustrations
providing the illusion of a fully-developed world and backstory while Waid's
writing fails to. I love Ross's art, but I don't think it makes the series
that "important."
>But I think it also depends on your reference point. All of the other
>posters here view K.C. as *trying* to be this era defining piece. As
>you yourself pointed out....
>>There's one area where the two don't quite compare, though; Kingdom Come
>>is indeed being hyped as a brilliant deconstruction (or "reconstruction"...
>>shudder) of superheroes.
> You apparently know something about Ross and Waid that I do not..
Hardly. Most of the hype, it's true, is coming from outside the comic --
DC's press machine, overenthusiastic fans, etc. But some of it does come
from the series itself -- the prestige format, the painted art, the Biblical
quotes scripted in front and typed in back, the black pages at start and end,
and of course the text's own constant parading of its Serious Message About
Comics are all screaming to be recognized as Important.
>I'm just looking at the work for what it is.
Same here. Frankly, I enjoy KC a lot, but only as an above-average super-
hero story, not as anything especially new, daring, or significant.
Which is fine, I'd rather have a really good basic superhero story. It's
just that arguments for its significance tend to fall flat with me.
>I mostly agree with you. Perhaps I'm finding more meaning in K.C. than
>I should. Or perhaps that meaning is simply uninteresting to the jaded
>folks of rac.vertigo.
Let's not blame this on the stereotype of Vertigo readers, now. :)
>> Worst of all, it even hypes *itself* as important;
>>all those damn Biblical portents come to mind as the worst offenders, but
>>they aren't the only ones. So it is valid, indeed important, to say that
>>Kingdom Come isn't a bold new take or an insightful commentary, because that
>>really is what it claims to be.
>I'm not sure if this is a valid criticism. It seems you are attacking
>KC for setting its sights too high.
Not exactly... more like criticizing it for saying it means more than it
does. I don't get the feeling they've underreached their goals so much as
overstated their achievements.
>Now, as to Flex...
>I think part of my disappointment with Flex was engendered by issue 3.
>I was hoping to see Morrison start to tie things together, but instead
>we simply got more exposition.
I was also let down by #3 (way too much Wally), but I'm still enjoying the
whole series. I think it may all come down to the end...
>>Frankly, I think Flex qualifies right along with them. But the medium
>>Morrison is using isn't so much comic book art (which Maus does) or comic
>>book writing (which Sandman does) as comic book *continuity* and *history*.
>>In a way, it's a much more challenging effort, because he's working in
>>something that's completely intangible and exists only in that strange
>>nexus between the sum total of all stories in a comics universe. (And just
>>to make it harder, he's practically inventing his own continuity instead
>>of working in an existing one.)
>To use your criticism, perhaps it is Morrison who is setting his
>sights too high. Of course, Flex #4 may redeem it all.
In what way?
At the very least, though, I think genuinely trying to do something
challenging and important and falling short is more laudable than succeeding
in something perfectly pedestrian (bottom line: a big fight among super-
heroes), and doing it very well, but then proclaiming it's something more.
Marc
Joe Gorde
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
:
: > And I think that the television and film references are an important
: >and interesting part of that picture.
:
: But how important are they, ultimately? Is there really any important
: purpose to including the Monkees or Bjork? They're fun, but I wouldn't
: say they make Kingdom Come a quality story on their own, even if they do
: make it postmodern. The most reference in the story are, of course, the
: comics references. And those too, while fun, rarely add any meaning to
: the story.
This is exactly what I was trying to get at. I think one can draw a
distinction between a work that uses postmodern techniques and a
truly postmodern work. Or maybe I'm just reluctant to use a label like
'postmodern' to make a work seem more interesting and unique than I
really feel it is. If I were giving an honest description of KC to a
friend, I would use the word 'cute' to describe these bits rather than
'postmodern'; it seems to fit so much better.
--
joeg...@umich.edu * she's got a boyfriend and she doesn't like you.
Moby
MC Grammar (mcgr...@aol.com) wrote:
: sexuality. I'm not a boy, I didn't start reading comics regularly until
: college, and I've never been all that interested in superheroes, but I
: thought he did a wonderful job of showing what it's like to be a confused
: kid who uses his fantasy life as a shield against reality. It *did* have
: emotional resonance for me. Much more than anything in Kingdom Come,
: certainly.
This is a GREAT thing. If Morrison's stories didn't appeal to ANY
women, I'd probably have a lower opinion of him as a writer. It's just so
hard for me to gauge how girls in general (that I know) will take to
Flex, after MY reading of it. I think this is particular to Flex.
: As for the "rape" scene, it didn't particularly offend me. I've read Dark
: Knight Returns, I recognized the reference, and that was it. The whole
: scene's a cliche, and Morrison was treating it as such. ("That's not a
: real girl, is it?" No, son, you've just taken way too many drugs.)
A remark on the real-life Morrison, no doubt. :) I honestly
wonder if his drug-taking contributed in any way to his poor health the
last few months (which was truly a horrible ordeal for anybody to go
through. He definitely has my condolensces).
Chris sorg
In article <4sgtsd$s...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Joe Gorde <joeg...@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>:
>: > And I think that the television and film references are an important
>: >and interesting part of that picture.
>:
>: But how important are they, ultimately? Is there really any important
>: purpose to including the Monkees or Bjork? They're fun, but I wouldn't
>: say they make Kingdom Come a quality story on their own, even if they do
>: make it postmodern. The most reference in the story are, of course, the
>: comics references. And those too, while fun, rarely add any meaning to
>: the story.
>
I personally don't get the connection of postmodernism and Kingdom
Come. I think I understand the ideas behind postmodernism (read Wittgenstein's
Tractacus and the Modern Arts for a decent, but simple explanations), and I
don't see how the fit at all with this work. I take Alex Ross's work to be,
very simply, illustration. If you look at Marvels, he does the same thing. He
uses easy references of faces for the illustrations in his work. Granted, this
time he has used a >few< cross-references, but the technique is basically the
same. And he doesn't take it any further, either. His panel layouts are not
postmodern, his artistic style doesn't change from page to page, if he is
intending to be referential he is failing miserably.
On top of that, NONE of the writing has any of this idea in it. It is
a comic about comic characters and the state of super hero comics and that's
about it. There is little to no support to this being a postmodern work, unless
there are lots and lots of references I'm missing.
Aside from all that, I'm still enjoying it, and all this discussion
about it. Sometimes I feel like its all been hashed out before, but then again,
so do most superhero comics anymore. At least this one's pretty to look at.
Christopher J.
cs...@enteract.com
SGARRE
Joe Gorde wrote:
> To start, I'd call postmodern any of those deliberately
> self-referential type works which are fundamentally and primarily
> concerned with examining the nature of media (or, more often, one medium
> in particular) and especially the building blocks and structure of those
> media. I'd like to emphasize the phrase "fundamentally and primarily" in
> that sentence;
To use a musical analogy:
Vanilla Ice is NOT postmodern because even though he sampled Queen, it
wasn't towards any commentary on Queen or music
Negativland IS postmodern because tracks like "The Perfect Cut" use
samples to comment on music and sampling.
Gyro G
Cian O'Connor
Chris sorg (cs...@enteract.com) wrote:
: In article <4sgtsd$s...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,: >: > And I think that the television and film references are an important
: >: >and interesting part of that picture.
: >:
: >: But how important are they, ultimately? Is there really any important
: >: purpose to including the Monkees or Bjork? They're fun, but I wouldn't
: >: say they make Kingdom Come a quality story on their own, even if they do
: >: make it postmodern. The most reference in the story are, of course, the
: >: comics references. And those too, while fun, rarely add any meaning to
: >: the story.
: I personally don't get the connection of postmodernism and Kingdom
: Come. I think I understand the ideas behind postmodernism (read Wittgenstein's
: Tractacus and the Modern Arts for a decent, but simple explanations), and I
: don't see how the fit at all with this work. I take Alex Ross's work to be,
: very simply, illustration. If you look at Marvels, he does the same thing. He
: uses easy references of faces for the illustrations in his work. Granted, this
: time he has used a >few< cross-references, but the technique is basically the
: same. And he doesn't take it any further, either. His panel layouts are not
: postmodern, his artistic style doesn't change from page to page, if he is
: intending to be referential he is failing miserably.
Excuse me, but doesn't Wittgenstein predate post-modernism. I stopped
thinking I knew what post-modernism was about when I read Roland
Barthes in the original French and realised that he was being less
than serious (something which doesn't translate well, curiously), and
as for Derrida...
All the definitions of post-modern would seem to apply to a variety of
non-modern works, so I'm never quite sure what use it is as a
definition. Misleading at best, I think.
: On top of that, NONE of the writing has any of this idea in it. It is
: a comic about comic characters and the state of super hero comics and that's
: about it. There is little to no support to this being a postmodern work, unless
: there are lots and lots of references I'm missing.
Well in some eyes, the fact that it is about low art, rather than high
art is enough. I dunno, in me young days we called that pop art.
You call it post-modern, I call it self-referential and he calls it a
bloody waste of the taxpayers money; but the world continues spinning
regardless.
Cian
Chris sorg
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.dc.vertigo
Subject: Re: Flex and Kingdom Come (was re: Flex Mentallo #3)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <wq4afx4...@elaine43.Stanford.EDU>
<4sgtsd$s...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> <4shbt9$o...@206.54.252.2>
<4snkel$l...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: EnterAct, L.L.C.
Keywords:
Cc:
:Chris sorg (cs...@enteract.com) wrote:
: I personally don't get the connection of postmodernism and Kingdom
:Come. I think I understand the ideas behind postmodernism (read
:Wittgenstein's Tractacus and the Modern Arts for a decent, but simple
:explanations), and I don't see how the fit at all with this work. I take
:Alex Ross's work to be, very simply, illustration. If you look at Marvels,
:he does the same thing. He uses easy references of faces for the
:illustrations in his work. Granted, this time he has used a >few< cross-
:references, but the technique is basically the same. And he doesn't take it
:any further, either. His panel layouts are not postmodern, his artistic
:style doesn't change from page to page, if he is intending to be
:referential he is failing miserably.
Cian O'Connor responds...
>Excuse me, but doesn't Wittgenstein predate post-modernism. I stopped
>thinking I knew what post-modernism was about when I read Roland
>Barthes in the original French and realised that he was being less
>than serious (something which doesn't translate well, curiously), and
>as for Derrida...
Actually, you are absolutely correct. I was thinking about this
after I posted, and I realized how wrong I was. I think it points me in a
better direction, however. I believe that if any 'movement' is used in KC,
it is definitely modern (barely), not post-modern. There is no self-
referential treatment in KC, nor is there any conscious attention paid to
the structure itself, both of which I tend to attribute to post-modern work.
>All the definitions of post-modern would seem to apply to a variety of
>non-modern works, so I'm never quite sure what use it is as a
>definition. Misleading at best, I think.
Do you mean the definitions of post-modern are in non-modern works?
That's really a contradiction. Perhaps the writers are ahead of the games.
In the case of modernism, Wittgenstein writes of the ideas before the ideas
really become a prevaling sensibilty. I tend to think that is the case with
a lot of ideas, the thought and statement is made, but it takes time before
they really take hold. Maybe Derrida and Barthes are just the 'first' post-
modernists. Then everyone else takes notice later (like now).
: On top of that, NONE of the writing has any of this idea in it.
:It is a comic about comic characters and the state of super hero comics
:and that's about it. There is little to no support to this being a
:postmodern work, unless there are lots and lots of references I'm missing.
>some stuff Cian mentioned about KC being more like pop-art,
>I'm paraphrasing...
I suppose that if you see KC as quoting pop art sources then it can
become a sort of pop art, and then it does look as if KC is examining the
structure of art, of the language itself. Pop art definitely explored the
dynamic nature of visuals and the observer within a cultural context.
I still think it's a real stretch for KC, though, there just isn't enough to
support that. I don't attribute any of these qualities to KC, I don't
believe it's looking into any issues closely or deeply, just an okay story
in a pretty wrapper. It's the ID4 of comics. :)
__________________________________________________________
Christopher J.
cs...@enteract.com