Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jaynova

I love Grant Morrison, but...

Recommended Posts

dogpoet    442

The Dunsany thing was a much earlier phase in his writing, though.

You can see a few hints that he was beginning to think he was terribly wrong and had been mistaken in some of his later letters as well.

I'm quite possibly giving the guy too much credit, but I prefer to believe that he was starting to abandon that pernicious crap and would have given up on it completely if he'd lasted a bit longer. There's a fair few precedents for American rightists abandoning the dark side when they saw what strength through joy had led to in Germany, after all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    734

That's the whole thrust of chaos magic(k) however Phil Hine and Pete Carroll try to dress it up, is it not?

 

Yes. Chaos magick doesn't necessarily mean that one favours "chaos", but is a reference to chaos theory in physics.

I'm not sure that Hine or Carroll even try to dress it up in different language than that, honestly.

It's right there on the inside front cover of Carroll's book Psychonaut, where there's a chart marking the history of magic.

LaVey's system, which predates Chaos Magic and isn't labeled as such, prefigures later Chaos Magic with its focus on symbols and use of psychological states (although LaVey concentrated on the negative emotional states).

All the tropes of what would later be called Chaos Magic can be found in LaVey. Hell, the first reference I can find to Lovecraft in a magical ritual even dates directly to LaVey.

Chaos Magic is simply post-modernism meeting the world of the occult, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    734

The Dunsany thing was a much earlier phase in his writing, though.

You can see a few hints that he was beginning to think he was terribly wrong and had been mistaken in some of his later letters as well.

I'm quite possibly giving the guy too much credit, but I prefer to believe that he was starting to abandon that pernicious crap and would have given up on it completely if he'd lasted a bit longer. There's a fair few precedents for American rightists abandoning the dark side when they saw what strength through joy had led to in Germany, after all...

 

Hmm...There are?

There weren't a huge number of famous Americans who were into fascism and repented. It was mainly German-Americans who felt they shoud support their "fatherland" over their adopted homeland.

There were plenty of people involved with supporting the fascists and Nazis, but they never repented. They basically just hid the fact that they were involved with that at all, and got right along with doing what they did before. Many went on to continue supporting causes which were wrapped up in crypto-fascism, like the whole anti-Communist crusade.

The only case I can think of is Jung, who wasn't American, who initially supported Hitler, but then quickly realized that the Nazis weren't what he thought they were, and started to write anti-authoritarian messages.

T.S. Eliot never specifically came out in favour of fascism, although there's some quasi-fascist elements in his work.

Ezra Pound never recanted. He still thought the fascists were right until his death.

I guess maybe some would include Charles Lindbergh, but honestly, while he came out in support of WWII when FDR entered the war, I believe he was just interested in the fact that he could make a lot of money by taking up the war cause.

I can think of a hell of a lot more on the far Left who jumped ship and became apologists for McCarthyism and the Cold War after World War II.

There was a lot more fascist sympathy in America after World War II than during it, in fact.

The Southern Agrarian movement was slightly more quiet about the pro-Hitler stuff, but they were still writing pro-fascist work well into the 1950s (perhaps even later).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogpoet    442

A lot of American Nazi party members wised up when they saw what their fatherland had been doing during the war. They may not have been taken with the "Jew Deal", but genocide wasn't what all of them had in mind.

Charles Lindbergh famously made an ideological u turn on fascism during the course of the war as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    734

Yeah, that part is true enough. The majority of the American Nazi Party during that period was mainly German-Americans who thought they were being loyal to the "fatherland".

There were quite a few people on the American Right who were trying to downplay the whole "Jew hate" and racialist aspect of the Nazis leading up to the US entering WWII.

Having Ford and Disney being Hitler's most outspoken popularizers over here probably didn't help their cause....

The American Nazis changed quite a bit after WWII.

 

Like I said, I was always doubtful about Lindbergh's motives...but most of my knowledge of his politics came from Roth, and conservatives attacked him for bias...of course, they aren't exactly unbiased sources either.

 

EDIT:Hmm...We've gotten about as far removed from Grant Morrison as possible now.

Shall we tie it all back together by mentioning the time that Morrison was accused of having Nazi sympathy because he deigned to write a comic series mocking Hitler?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogpoet    442

It wasn't a bad comic, either.

Was that one published before or after Beryl Bainbridge's novel on a similar theme, Young Adolph? They were both late '80s, I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TimC    43

Bainbridge's 'Young Adolf' was published in 1978. It'd be kindest to describe Morrison's strip as a postmodern homage to the novel (you could just about get away with that in the late 80s). As well as the basic plot, they share some key dialogue - which may have been taken from Mrs Hitler's 'historical' account, but I'd suspect not.

The Bainbridge book wasn't referenced at the time of the strip's publication in 'Crisis', nor in the pieces I read around the original 'Cut' publication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    734

Hmm...I know that Morrison was influenced by Bridget Dowling in writing the strip, but that's as far as Morrison's citations went.

They were both drawing from the same source material, but I haven't read Young Adolf, so that's as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogpoet    442

Bainbridge got there first, then.

Naughty Morrison...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cunning Man    1

That's the whole thrust of chaos magic(k) however Phil Hine and Pete Carroll try to dress it up, is it not?

 

 

Let me preface by saying I don't use the word magick. It and prestidigitation are both magic to me, seen from different imaginative heights.

 

Morrison doesn't seem to use art as magic, as Moore does. Morrison makes sigils in his free time, as far as I know, to force outcomes he prefers. Moore's stories involve forces he doesn't favor, as though he were by writing it merely performing a ceremony akin to the ancient Greek theater Weston describes in her 'From Ritual to Romance'. To make a sigil, or to perform many other types of ritual magic -gathering the right candles, incense, colors- is to try to increase probability of types of things happening by creating a specific mind-frame. I'm not sure Alan Moore understands quantum physics any better than I do, which isn't really at all, but I think he and I are both subjectivists, and we would agree that anything scientists articulate with regard to the natural world is ultimately only our perception of it, and thus language. So he can fudge a character like Dr Manhattan with a lot of tonally Taoist speech, and my History of Science professor could explain gravity to a layman like myself with the example of a sweet-smelling room drawing him to it as though he were a clump of inanimate matter sliding into thinning space. So too, with yellow apparel, a Jovial tone, and a fictional rape, Moore tries to invoke Jupiter. I used to try to see his types as gods dressed in modern fashion, but I now believe I had the names right and was looking for the wrong type of celestial beings. As I said in a previous post, he takes a more astrological tack.

 

This power of invocation is the illusion which terrifies the destructive, self-entitled assholes who think they're running the world, and what more than anything else entices them. On the one hand any runt could do it, and that's chaos in the making; but on the other, if there were some magic word that could turn everyone into mindlessly consuming war drones, I have literally no doubt the swine would flood all existent media with it non-stop, and to the best of their well-funded ability. But how fucking infantile would that be? I ask as someone who like every other human being on Earth has secretly craved this power, if even only as a kid playing make-believe, or an adult reciting the Charm of Making from 'Excalibur' just to see if anything would happen. [i also ask as part of the majority that enjoys the moral superiority of not having destroyed countless lives out of a stupidly pointless, self-aggrandizing wish to rule.] Okay, everyone's tired of the “power corrupts” trope, but how do you trust your motivations, or the strength of your character in the face of temptation? That's the point of Veidt's line in 'Watchmen' that runs: “I've saved Earth from Hell. Next, I'll help her towards Utopia.” That should send up a red flag in the reader's mind. All of this is in regard to the claim of elitism in magic. Yes, it's noble to wish to storm Heaven, to steal the fire and bring it down to your fellow men, but what do you do when you get there? Crowley in his Confessions said that even when Thelema was established as a global law (any day now) mankind would need guidance. How do the teachings of the Thule Society aid something like German National Socialism? How does socialism become fascism? To sum it up -or at least make an exit from it- while sigil magic may aid chaos (and its nobility may in part be dependent on the fact that most people aren't very effective with it) by making everyone who uses it a valid, relevant force in the universe, beholden to no one and nothing, there exists in it the seed of true elitism, which promises a correct standard, and followers to adopt it, all of whom and one's self make up the Us that opposes Them, they of course being infidels.

 

Just as I see no magick without stage magic, no sigil needs to exist apart from representations of the forces it counters. When Moore draws a circle, he calls all four Watchtowers: when he invokes Apollo, he also invokes Saturn and Mars, so the former may dispel them. There is no rule-breaking without rules. Maybe the oldest con is after all to provide people with options and let them think they're making up their own minds. It's worked for the American government. And of course the devil's oldest trick, to once again quote Uncle Al, is to let people rely on their own good nature. In any case, use of Lovecraftian stuff can't define anything Alan Moore does as strictly chaos-orientated however appropriately that describes Lovecraft, because Moore really is just telling jokes, and that means showing opposite sides of each story he writes.

 

BTW, A lot of people fault things I write because I try to provide my own take on things and to some extent define my own terms, and this means my posts may conflict with established dogmas, such as that of chaos, sigils, or whatever. I only try to express my perspective. If I seem insensitive or blunt sometimes just ignore me or tell me to fuck off.

 

PPS, I haven't heard of any of the neo-pagans mentioned in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogpoet    442

I'd question that Morrison doesn't use magic in his art. Hasn't he gone on record a few times saying that was the whole point of The Invisibles?

(And the point of Veidt's line in Watchmen, iirc, is that Moore wanted a big bad he could sympathise with, rather than making it one of the right leaning psychopaths like Rorschach and The Comedian...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    734

Oh yeah. Remember The Filth? Morrison said that whole book was one big sigil to ward of some negative events that he felt were in the air at the time, both personally and globally.

He said the series was meant to serve as a "cleansing ritual", for his own mind and the mind of society.

 

Well, if one actually knows the background of Thelema, the Thule Society, or National Socialism, it's easy to understand what each and every one of them are about.

None of them were a digression from what they were originally meant to be about.

The Thule Society was always, at heart, an Aryan cult.

National Socialism is what it says, government policies meant to prop up and make the nation (in that case, Germany) strong.

Crowley always meant the law of Thelema to apply to a special elite. He took his whole concept of Thelema from Rebelais. He even used the exact same name as found in Rabelais' most famous book. He also never hid the fact that he was drawing heavily from Nietzsche's philosophy. The term's root can be traced to Plato, where it means "will". Nietzsche never hid his elitist pretensions, he was always writing from the point of view of the aristocrat as against the "rabble", regardless of how some people try to rehabilitate Nietzsche today. He was writing a reforumulation of the work of Max Stirner. While Stirner was speaking to everyone with his elitism (which you can see where he laments the fact that he "alone, as an individual" has no hope of fighting the State), Nietzsche was speaking to an aristocratic minority, solely. Crowley just took the ideal of an intellectual (or spiritual) elite as opposed to Nietzsche's conservative aristocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cunning Man    1

I'd question that Morrison doesn't use magic in his art. Hasn't he gone on record a few times saying that was the whole point of The Invisibles?

(And the point of Veidt's line in Watchmen, iirc, is that Moore wanted a big bad he could sympathise with, rather than making it one of the right leaning psychopaths like Rorschach and The Comedian...)

 

 

What I meant to say was that Morrison and Moore don't use it the same way in most instances. They have different styles of art one could argue because they proceed from different styles of magic.

Veidt was oversensitive the way Lovecraft was. It may be a noble trait, or born from a noble impulse, but the imbalance it creates is potentially harmful. Its moral ambiguity makes sympathy with it an uncertain outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    734

Except their "sensitivity" moved them in opposite directions.

Lovecraft's sensitivity made him slight at change. He felt that society was being disordered by chaotic forces which were making society progress in ways that were threatening to what he felt of as stability.

Obviously society is messed up. There's a very tiny minority who'd say that society isn't moving in wrong directions in some way, shape, or form...no matter the political ideology of the person. There're plenty of other examples of sensitive individuals from outside that mould...Kafka, for example.

 

I've argued, as well, that Moore sticks more to traditionalism than Morrison.

Morrison's type of magic is much more the exemplar of "chaos magic". He has little time for history or tradition, and a lot of time for pop culture, wry cynicism, and cutting corners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cunning Man    1

Except their "sensitivity" moved them in opposite directions.

Lovecraft's sensitivity made him slight at change. He felt that society was being disordered by chaotic forces which were making society progress in ways that were threatening to what he felt of as stability.

 

Well, each of them characterized the dragon of darkness in his life according to the particulars of his circumstances, but each took up the lance to slay it, and in doing so escape the jaws of death, or the death of his way of life as it were. Their methods were certainly also different.

 

I've argued, as well, that Moore sticks more to traditionalism than Morrison.

Morrison's type of magic is much more the exemplar of "chaos magic". He has little time for history or tradition, and a lot of time for pop culture, wry cynicism, and cutting corners.

 

I think those descriptions are right. Morrison doesn't seem to have any checks on him, self-imposed or otherwise. His theory in the new book about Batman being gay and into rave fashion for instance; do we know if he's ever considered the view that the batarangs, stealth, effectiveness of disguise, ridiculously lucky avoidance of bullets, and so on, are all simply a kid's idea of how a grown up could rid the world of crime? That interpretation of Batman makes a lot more sense to me than stubbornly holding him to realistic standards. I never hear anyone question Grant. As much as I enjoy his fiction I don't always understand the authority vested in him on these subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    734

Morrison never said that Batman was gay. He just made some in-jokes (in a wink, wink, nudge, nudge manner) referencing the Batman TV show, which was quite campy.

Morrison introduced female love interests for Wayne during his run also.

 

I wouldn't point to Morrison too much though, as it's the trend in comic books today, to write them with a wry cynicism for adults who grew up reading comic books, and might be slightly ashamed that they still love the characters.

These creators can't let the characters rest on their laurels, that they exist in a fictional world. It all has to be given a reason in our reality today.

I'd say Morrison brings a lot more fun and reverence for the characters than a lot of creators today.

Moore's just as guilty of deconstruction of comic characters, he's just spent far less time in the world of mainstream superheroes than Morrison.

Watchmen is a perfect example, of taking innocent or dated (The Question was never innocent!) old comic characters and reinventing them for the 1980s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His theory in the new book about Batman being gay and into rave fashion for instance; do we know if he's ever considered the view that the batarangs, stealth, effectiveness of disguise, ridiculously lucky avoidance of bullets, and so on, are all simply a kid's idea of how a grown up could rid the world of crime

Quite possibly they might be, but Bob Kane Bill Finger was a bit older than that when he came up with the character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cunning Man    1

Morrison never said that Batman was gay.

 

Kinda he did. I thought it was from Supergods which is what I meant when I said "the new book".

 

 

His theory in the new book about Batman being gay and into rave fashion for instance; do we know if he's ever considered the view that the batarangs, stealth, effectiveness of disguise, ridiculously lucky avoidance of bullets, and so on, are all simply a kid's idea of how a grown up could rid the world of crime

Quite possibly they might be, but Bob Kane Bill Finger was a bit older than that when he came up with the character.

 

I'm not sure if you're joking, but adults can write fiction for kids imitative of a child's simpler view of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogpoet    442

Morrison never said that Batman was gay.

 

Kinda he did. I thought it was from Supergods which is what I meant when I said "the new book".

 

 

His theory in the new book about Batman being gay and into rave fashion for instance; do we know if he's ever considered the view that the batarangs, stealth, effectiveness of disguise, ridiculously lucky avoidance of bullets, and so on, are all simply a kid's idea of how a grown up could rid the world of crime

Quite possibly they might be, but Bob Kane Bill Finger was a bit older than that when he came up with the character.

 

I'm not sure if you're joking, but adults can write fiction for kids imitative of a child's simpler view of the universe.

They can, but in a few cases they have an overly simple minded view of the universe themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaynova    1

I want to chime in to agree with Christian that Morrison does bring the fun with the characters, and he's probably that "One person, living or dead, you'd like to have dinner with" for me. I kind of want to hire him to be my life coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian    734

I don't know...

"Do you do drugs? Do you like sex? Do you do druggie-sex magic? Can you draw a sigil? Can you draw a sigil while doing druggie-sex magic? OK, you're set to be immortal!"

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
Sign in to follow this  

×