Jump to content
wolfram

Seven Soldiers

Recommended Posts

Slightly off-topic, but I'll kick myself if I don't mention it - I really, really hate it when people refer to writers/artists by their first name (unless they know them personally, of course - even then, it's usually best avoided in discussions of their actual work). It's such a pretentious, pseud-ish thing to do.

 

So, don't do it. Or I'll get angry with you. Harrumph.

 

I hate that shit as well Mark and I notice that I'd unwittingly done it myself here. I blame the late hour or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My rage knows no bounds. That's it, pal - you're going on THE LIST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems that a lot of us use "Garff" or "Wozza" and that is not OK in the John Byrne Don't Pretend You Have a Personal Relationship Rulebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicknames (and even first names) are fine if used in an appropriate context - an off-the-cuff remark about a creator, or a light-hearted joking use of, say, "Garff" or "Wozza" isn't a problem. It's when someone makes a nominally serious comment based on a creator's work, phrased in a manner which (however inadvertently) implies superiority via personal association ("oh, of course what Grant really meant was...") that it becomes irritating. Just use a bit of judgement, really - ask yourself "is this going to make me sound like a pillock?" If the answer is "yes", you should probably find another way of saying the same thing.

 

That's my take, anyway. Feel entirely free to disagree - I wasn't suggesting that it be enforced as board policy, just venting about something which really gets on my tits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just use a bit of judgement, really - ask yourself "is this going to make me sound like a pillock?" If the answer is "yes", you should probably find another way of saying the same thing.

 

Shit, if I asked myself that I don't think I'd post much of anything! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grant is shorter than Morrison.

Neil is shorter than Gaiman.

I usually use last names, but sometimes just for the sake of expediency, you just write "Grant".

 

I got sick of writing "Morrison" or "Grant Morrison" over and over on this thread.

Looking back, to save time, it would have been even more expeident to just use "he", as Grant Morrison was the only name being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicknames (and even first names) are fine if used in an appropriate context - an off-the-cuff remark about a creator, or a light-hearted joking use of, say, "Garff" or "Wozza" isn't a problem. It's when someone makes a nominally serious comment based on a creator's work, phrased in a manner which (however inadvertently) implies superiority via personal association ("oh, of course what Grant really meant was...") that it becomes irritating. Just use a bit of judgement, really - ask yourself "is this going to make me sound like a pillock?" If the answer is "yes", you should probably find another way of saying the same thing.

 

That's my take, anyway. Feel entirely free to disagree - I wasn't suggesting that it be enforced as board policy, just venting about something which really gets on my tits.

 

 

Is it ok if I call Jamie Delano "Cupcake?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slightly off-topic, but I'll kick myself if I don't mention it - I really, really hate it when people refer to writers/artists by their first name (unless they know them personally, of course - even then, it's usually best avoided in discussions of their actual work). It's such a pretentious, pseud-ish thing to do.

 

So, don't do it. Or I'll get angry with you. Harrumph.

 

I agree, but I find I always type Morrison wrong so Grant is the easy way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to Klarion showing up OYL, though - well, it hasn't happened yet, so I'd assume there'll be at least some attempt at clarification when he shows up in the pages of Robin...At a guess, though, it'll simply be played as though Klarion has returned to his original, pre-Crisis status - a diabolical witch-boy from another realm/dimension (in this case that realm is the future, with time-travel substituted for dimension-hopping) where magic and misrule dominate, who pops into the DCU to cause trouble/have fun/experience new stuff. Seven Soldiers has, essentially, just been a new origin story for the character, (re-)introducing him to the modern-day DCU.

 

Well, I was sort of right (in that this does indeed appear to be the way things have worked out for Klarion)...

 

She (the Bulleteer)'s found her way into the regular DCU as a kind of cipher who crops up when writers need a 'lame' hero to stand around in crowd scenes. I have no control over how people handle the Seven Soldiers characters in my wake - Klarion already seems barely recognizable and appears to have returned to his role (a role no-one could ever sell in the first place) as a teen warlock who turns up to fight DCs younger characters - a sort of Goth Mr. Myxyzptlk. I honestly don't expect anyone to actualize the potential of these characters, but I'd like to be proven wrong. The Guardian and Frankenstein could join the JLA.

 

...but also, in a rather more real way, sort of wrong (in that it's not what Morrison intended at all). Ah, well. Nutsacks.

 

Robin's still an ace book, though, so it'll probably turn out to be a perfectly good story anyway. Also, the hypocrisy of his comment about the Bulleteer seems rather striking - the only book in which she's turned up as a "'lame' hero to stand around in crowd scenes" thus far is 52, which he's co-writing himself (complete with innumerable interviews in which he's raved enthusiastically about how responsive all the writers have been to the others' ideas and input). So really, he's got no-one else to blame for that one.

 

 

 

Anyway, there's a post-mortem interview on Seven Soldiers with Morrison here. As is often the case, he doesn't seem to have a particularly good grasp of what worked about his story and what didn't - on the one hand, it's gratifying to see a writer who's confident enough in his ideas that he's willing to push on with them regardless of criticism, secure in the knowledge that he'll be proved right in time. On the other hand, I do rather wish he'd pay at least some attention to some of the recurring criticisms which are levelled at his work, because perhaps then he'd stop making the same damn mistakes over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morrison comes across as exceedingly arrogant and demeaning towards fan opinion many times, if they doubt his sheer genius.

I agree it's great to be proud of your work and defend it, and if someone critiques something that you really feel in your heart worked disregard it, and that's all fine.

But, you need to take a step back from your work too. If you're so personally involved that any bit of criticism is an attack at you that you need to defend against, that's moving into a realm where you consider your work to be perfect and outside the realm of the readership.

Yes, Grant Morrison has amazing ideas that a lot of the time do move into the realm of sheer genius, but no, everytime someone critiques your work it doesn't mean they are too feeble minded to understand your concepts.

When a great number of people come together and level the same complaints you really need to listen and see if there is a justifiable reason tbat many fans are feeling this way.

 

Oh, and I can totally understand that attitude about the Inivisibles. It was an intensely personal work that would be hard to remove yourself from, but when Morrison is levelling the same complaints at fan critcism at fucking New X-Men as he was with the Invisibles, you're entering into a realm of near narcissism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished the interview. I didn't see any of that in this interview. Morrison seemed far more humble and much less manic in this interview than in most of his interviews.

He seemed very subdued.

 

I liked this paragraph by G.M.:

Bringing the Seven Unknown Men into it, there's definitely a level upon which Seven Soldiers can be read as a comics industry critique but that narrow view might not be as rewarding as reading it as a vast, interactive story of the DC Universe. I'm drawn to analysis myself so I understand how much fun it can be but it can also make you feel a bit queasy if you overdo it The more you dissect art to see how it works, the less magical it becomes, and from my own point of view sometimes it's best just to take the ride, have fun, and get off before you get too caught up in it. I love the films of David Lynch, and 'If...' and 'O Lucky Man!' are my two favorite movies - I don't feel the need to ask why Lindsay Anderson chose to have a character dead in one scene, then alive without explanation in the next. All I care about is the rich, rewarding feeling I get in my gut when I watch this stuff. I don't need art to be logical, just emotionally honest, in fact the more dreamlike, the more surreal, the more I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go looking for Morrison text bits and video clips and so forth, and I've never gotten the impression that he is condescending to his readership.

 

Quite the contrary, he looks like he is willing to be a messiah and embrace their development as if it were his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...the fact that Morrison is coming across as a messiah to you may be a large part of the problem....

 

He's stated before in interviews he doesn't want any of his work to be seen as an ideology. He hates ideologies. In the one interview I read, he said, "sometimes I get so depressed and wonder if all this work in comics is worth it and I just want to cash it in and go the fucking L. Ron Hubbard route with The Invisibles!".

Absolutely fucking hilariously priceless!

 

I wish I could find those interviews where he was so condescending to the readers and came across as so smug.

It was interviews he did around the time he was writing The Filth and New X-Men, when fans were being pretty negative towards his work.

And, actually, he probably did actually take a lot of those critiques to heart, as his work has improved exponentially in the last couple of years until he's near the peak he breached after The Invisibles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need no stinking messiah.

 

 

When he wrote the Filth, that period, he was doing some wonky magic shit where he embraced all things bad about himself, about a year and a half, says it was the darkest period in his adult life. Depression and squalor and libidinous sexual adventures. The reverse of the 10 Sephiroth of the Kaballah. Is wonky a word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can worship anyone you want.

At least your messiah didn't live over 2000 years ago and let himself get nailed to a tree.

Although my messiah (Robert Anton Wilson) taught your messiah everything he knows, so you've got the Mohammad to my Jesus!

 

Hey, if Morrison can't write anything amazing just because of a little depression, he isn't much of a messiah! Look at Edgar Allan Poe, he wrote all of his best work while morbidly depressed.

 

According to the interview Mark posted, Morrison deals with depression quite a bit. I was surprised to hear that. Most artistic types deal with depressive disorders, but Morrison always seemed too upbeat and flamboyant to be a depressive. I wonder if he's cyclothymic. I would guess so.

 

Anyway, yes, "wonky" is derived from the proper noun "Wonka" (as in Willy). It means a deranged, reclusive candy maker who hates children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I smell a Great Post Award nomination for Christian

 

 

George Washington was assassinated by Adam Weishaupt on his way over to America, and then Adam took his place and pretended to be him. Wonder what America would have been like if that hadn't happened. Thank you, Robert Anton Wilson.

 

Dave Sim was an Illuminatus fan, if I remember that letters column in Chruch & State correctly. That plot in C&S smacked of plagerism.

 

I, too, was suprised at the references to depression in the above interview. Kudos to Morrison for speaking frankly about it. Oh, and nice find, Mark.

 

As for Wonky, I was referring to the club in Bristols. Since chocoloate is outlawed in Bristols, your definition is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...