Jump to content
wolfram

Hellblazer Q&A

Recommended Posts

Josh    6
Well, regardless of John at the S&M club during Azzarello's run, we've seen that John usually like to be dominant in a relationship. So, I'd say that almost being tricked into having sex with a woman who wasn't really attracted to him would piss him off! All this, even though he really craves a more dominant woman he can respect, as shown with Kit; but yet, he also has a hard time reconciling to that fact with his dominant personality.

 

I don't think his personality is all that dominant in relation to any significant other. He tends to let things happen to him, except when initiative is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James    38

Nah, you can see that he only really respects partners with dominant personalities (Kit, Zed, Dani, Angie) though he consciously seeks out submissive ones (Emma, Marj).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rogan    176

Didn't John win his soul back by confronting the "shepherd" in the forrest, at the end of Jenkins's run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rogan    176

that's exactly what my art history prof. said, when i asked him how there are 12 apostles on the icons representing Jesus's ressurection, when Judas hanged himself. bastard. (the prof, not Judas.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Donnie Van    0
He sold it three times in Dangerous Habits but won it back in issue 61 by foiling The First three times. Then chopped it into bits and put the bad parts in the Demon Constantine, then he had sex with Ellie to regain the taint. Finally, he sold exclusive rights to The First at the end of Jenkins' run.

 

What about the Golden Boy thing?

I don't have those issues, but the summary here says their souls combine at the end or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Qusoor    69
that's exactly what my art history prof. said, when i asked him how there are 12 apostles on the icons representing Jesus's ressurection, when Judas hanged himself. bastard. (the prof, not Judas.)

Weellll, without Judas, there would have been no resurrection, and it would all have been for naught. And let's not forget that Judas did some good things in a couple of the miracles, although in general, he's very much a background character for most of the Gospels.

 

The Golden Boy was never part of John, except for being his twin. If you believe in any sort of soul twin wierdness, then you've got a case, but they're pretty much separate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    784

Actually, Rogan....The Apostles were followers of Jesus after his death, where the Disciples were followers of Jesus while he was alive. There were 12 Disciples, including the Judas. They must've found a replacement after Jesus' death. :biggrin: At least, that's what my Bible Class always told me when I was in a Christian school.

 

As far as I can tell, NO Jesus/The Shepherd did NOT help J.C. He only agreed to get God to leave John's buddies alone. John was actually being unselfish, and I think the shepherd was just giving John some advice, not setting his life in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abhimanyu    20
that's exactly what my art history prof. said, when i asked him how there are 12 apostles on the icons representing Jesus's ressurection, when Judas hanged himself. bastard. (the prof, not Judas.)

Weellll, without Judas, there would have been no resurrection, and it would all have been for naught. And let's not forget that Judas did some good things in a couple of the miracles, although in general, he's very much a background character for most of the Gospels.

 

 

This is actually a good point. I never understood what fundamenalists had against Jews since even if it were true that Jews were responsible for CHrist's death (for which I don't see any real evidence, the word 'evidence' being laughable at any rate when used in connection to millenia-old religions) then shouldnt the fundies be Thanking the Jews for causing the death and resurrection of Christ?? Cos otherwise their souls would never have been saved! It's all one big cockup if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James    38

Yeah, it's pretty messed up.

 

what on? i don't understand the question.

 

"i asked him how there are 12 apostles on the icons representing Jesus's ressurection, when Judas hanged himself."

 

12 apostles on the icons? What icons? Where? On a particular picture? Is this just some religious terminology I haven't heard before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rogan    176

oklay - first off, Christian, in serbian, we use the term "apostol" for the 12 chaps who tagged along with J.C. on his magical mystery tour back in 33. AD, so no "disciple" crap for me ;)

 

 

James - we are studying orthodox icons/fresco art that can be found in churches/monasteries throughout Serbia, Macedonia, Greece... every shurch has an icon or two in front of the altar, religious paintings of varying size, that are considered holy relics, and allegedly can perform miracles. people pray to them. The icons have certain preorained themes that can be pictured on them : Stations of the cross cycle, Christ's miracles, scenes from the lives of famous saints... these scenes have a series of "rules" and guidelines that determine how will they be presented - St. John is always depicted as a young beardless man, St. Luke is always bald... so, we have to learn to recognize these themes based on the photos of famous icons. a part of our exam is to name the motif from an icon that will be shown on the projector. So, they were showing us the series of Christ's post-ressurrection miracles, and there were 12 apostles, so i wondered who was new, since Judas kicked the bucket, but is often clearly depicted in the pre-crucifiction icons...

 

georgije.jpg

 

this is an icon of St. George (Georgije, Djordje in serbian) killing the Dragon. This theme is mostly always depicted like this -- he must be on the horse, princess Alexandra (if i recall her name correctly) is either behind him ,or is leading the tamed dragon on a leash, the castle with her parents is always in the upper right corner of the canvas... the whole point is to teach usto recognize numerous variations of te theme by knowing which key characteristics are tied to which presentation of a certain event, and what's the symbolism behind each and every thing painted here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Qusoor    69
This is actually a good point. I never understood what fundamenalists had against Jews since even if it were true that Jews were responsible for CHrist's death (for which I don't see any real evidence, the word 'evidence' being laughable at any rate when used in connection to millenia-old religions) then shouldnt the fundies be Thanking the Jews for causing the death and resurrection of Christ?? Cos otherwise their souls would never have been saved! It's all one big cockup if you ask me.

In general, I'll attribute stupidity to anything before malice, but this cannoy explain the animosity towards the Jews. It seems to me that the Early Church Fathers (~700 AD on) basically looked for an excuse to persecute the Jews. Ine big reason was that the Church didn't allow usury, which is to say charging interest on money loaned. The Jews could, so they rather quickly became wealthy, but resented, bankers. And so any excuse would do, similar the destruction of the Templars.

 

Of course, the Rom (gypsies) were also blamed for making the nails of the Crucifiction, so there's this whole "Poke a Pagan for the Prince of Peace" thing that has been going on for nearly fifteen hundred years. And when the Church couldn't find outsiders to hate, they would go after people who took a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. The Aryan Heresy, which the Nicene Creed was created to combat, is very similar to modern Anglicanism (the Episcopalians, to Americans). But because it came about during the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church didn't have the wherewithall to stamp it out.

 

If you haven't read Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, I highly recommend it for a wonderful summary of the "great river of heresy" that the Medieval Church was so afraid of.

 

"Doubting" Thomas was the apostle chosen to replace Judas, so they would be 12 again.

 

Anyway, not that much of this has much to do with Hellblazer (until he starts going after the Holy Grail which was siezed by the Albignasians and eventually stolen by the Nazis etc etc etc), since he's not really much of a god-botherer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Qusoor    69
12 apostles on the icons? What icons? Where? On a particular picture? Is this just some religious terminology I haven't heard before?

Eastern Orthodox Christanity, which is more prevalent in Eastern (duh) Europe, shows the Saints and all the other Holy Folks in stylized scenes, usually beautifully painted. Where the Roman Catholic church will put the saints anywhere--the floor, the walls, in the windows, the Orthodox Church is all about the icons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rogan    176
"Doubting" Thomas was the apostle chosen to replace Judas, so they would be 12 again.

 

 

are you sure it's Tom (like i said, my prof wouldn't/couldn't give me any kind of an answer, so i wanna look smarter than him on the exam... :p)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abhimanyu    20
This is actually a good point. I never understood what fundamenalists had against Jews since even if it were true that Jews were responsible for CHrist's death (for which I don't see any real evidence, the word 'evidence' being laughable at any rate when used in connection to millenia-old religions) then shouldnt the fundies be Thanking the Jews for causing the death and resurrection of Christ?? Cos otherwise their souls would never have been saved! It's all one big cockup if you ask me.

In general, I'll attribute stupidity to anything before malice, but this cannoy explain the animosity towards the Jews. It seems to me that the Early Church Fathers (~700 AD on) basically looked for an excuse to persecute the Jews. Ine big reason was that the Church didn't allow usury, which is to say charging interest on money loaned. The Jews could, so they rather quickly became wealthy, but resented, bankers. And so any excuse would do, similar the destruction of the Templars.

 

Of course, the Rom (gypsies) were also blamed for making the nails of the Crucifiction, so there's this whole "Poke a Pagan for the Prince of Peace" thing that has been going on for nearly fifteen hundred years. And when the Church couldn't find outsiders to hate, they would go after people who took a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. The Aryan Heresy, which the Nicene Creed was created to combat, is very similar to modern Anglicanism (the Episcopalians, to Americans). But because it came about during the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church didn't have the wherewithall to stamp it out.

 

If you haven't read Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, I highly recommend it for a wonderful summary of the "great river of heresy" that the Medieval Church was so afraid of.

 

"Doubting" Thomas was the apostle chosen to replace Judas, so they would be 12 again.

 

Anyway, not that much of this has much to do with Hellblazer (until he starts going after the Holy Grail which was siezed by the Albignasians and eventually stolen by the Nazis etc etc etc), since he's not really much of a god-botherer.

 

 

So you're saying that the Church Fathers were stupid and not malicious?

 

I have indeed read The Name of the Rose. A great great book and also a very clever and underrated movie. No close comparisons should be made with the book though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark    333

The movie does a surprisingly good job of making good entertainment out of a remarkably dense, philosophically-involved, and conceptually-weighted novel. But it's got naff-all to do with the actual content of the book, barring the bare bones of the narrative structure. Both are good, but the book is something genuinely rather special. Recommended.

 

But it has, as has been observed, bugger-all to do with Hellblazer. So to close, my relevant question would be this:

 

When did John lose the earring? I can't be bothered to dig through the issues to find out, and I'm curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avaunt    284

I have a question. Is the Lucifer of Sandman, and the eponymous comic, around in Constantines world?.

 

Subsequent question if the answer is yes, would Constantine try any funny stuff with Lucifer do you think?. You know, once as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark    333

The answer is 'probably, yes'. He's never appeared in HB or any of it's spin-offs, John's never been in Lucifer to the best of my knowledge, but since they're both part of what can laughably be termed the 'Vertigo Universe', Mike has talked about some form of low-key crossover event between the characters/titles, and the whole 'First of the Fallen/Devil' nonsense came about because Ennis wasn't allowed to use the actual Devil, since he'd just quit Hell in Sandman (that was back when they were all technically in the DCU, mind), I think we can safely say that they do cohabit a world, yes.

 

'Try any funny stuff'? You make it sound like he's going to proposition the poor bastard. "So, Lucifer, me oul' mate. Sponge or stone?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andy    2
When did John lose the earring? I can't be bothered to dig through the issues to find out, and I'm curious.

I believe it was just kind of phased out in the latter half of the Delano run. I don't think it's been seen since John was fished out of the water at the end of The Fear Machine arc.

 

Oh and Constantine did make a cameo in "Lucifer" as a patron of the Morningstar's club in Los Angeles. Also Constantine mentioned to Ellie that Lucifer sent him a postcard from Australia back in the Ennis run. So the two characters do exist in the same "universe" and perhaps may even run into each other down the road if Mike Carey does indeed send John to Hell for his last big "Hellblazer" arc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    784

AH! Thomas was the replacement! Thanks, Qusoor. I knew that, but forgot!

 

Yes, Sandman and J.C.'s world coexist. John was co-star in "Sandman" #3, and his dream self appeared at Morpheus' funeral at the end of "Sandman". Plus, there is a comic called "Sandman Presents:Love Street" which stars John and has various "Sandman" related characters scattered throughout.

If the Lucifer is from "Sandman" parallels aren't enough, J.C. made an appearance for one page in "Lucifer" #5.

But, Andy, if John does go to Hell, unless there are major changes in the "Lucifer" comic book; Lucifer will not be in Hell. He is still abdicate from the throne of Hell (see:"Sandman:Seasons of Mist" if anyone doesn't know about this story).

 

And yes, since John is bi, and Lucifer is a nice looking chap, I think John and him would try some funny stuff! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James    38
The answer is 'probably, yes'. He's never appeared in HB or any of it's spin-offs, John's never been in Lucifer to the best of my knowledge

 

Lucifer cameoed with Mazikeen in "Staring at the Wall" and John cameoed in "The House of Windowless Rooms," which is collected in the second Lucifer TPB, "Children and Monsters."

 

Lucifer's just too damned powerful for John to mess with. He could destroy John with a thought, so he's a bit out of John's league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×