Grant Morrison S/D

most of the artists who aren't Williams do a lot of damage to anything in the "Batman" title (bar some bits of #700, and did John Van Fleet do that painted Joker one early on?), but Final Crisis is all good, and there are only three issues of Batman & Robin with shitty art, and even that's nowhere near as shitty as Tony Daniel. (Slightly shittier than Kubert.)

I think Batman Inc. is a lot of fun, and I like Yanick Paquette's (Kevin Nowlan-esque) art. Morrison seems to come up with a lot of ideas that seem nonsensical or out of character (like having Bat-partners around the world), but work anyway just from sheer energy level and the fact that he doesn't let the pace lag long enough to give them much thought.

Paquette's biting Nowlan's shading on faces, don't see too much else Nowlanesque in his layouts or spotting. The grotesquely OTT T&A in #1 almost put me off the series completely, but a combination of him reining it in a bit and me being braced for it helped #2 go down easier.

Morrison seems to come up with a lot of ideas that seem nonsensical or out of character (like having Bat-partners around the world), but work anyway just from sheer energy level and the fact that he doesn't let the pace lag long enough to give them much thought.

― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Wednesday, January 5, 2011 3:06 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

love the bat-partners around the world bit, but largely because it's so unexpected. i'm completely sick of the "one dark & driven borderline bat-psycho going it alone against a fiendish web of crime (and his own inner demons!)" shtick. nice to see someone take the character in a new direction without sacrificing his basic essence.

Did love final crisis an awful lot. P. much agree with tuomas that batman isn't particularly well suited for him. Strange though because i generally do like morrison even more when he's reined in a little bit. His x-men run is probably my favourite thing in all of comics.

Fittingly, Flex seems to have a visual basis in Morrison's father.

The Talking with Gods documentary was a bit amateurish, but it's well worth a watch if you're interested in where Morrison's ideas come from. His father seems to have been quite an interesting person (a WWII veteran who became a peace and anti-nuclear activist), and a dapper fellow too. No wonder Flex was based on him.

It was also interesting to see and hear so many Morrison collaborators talk onscreen, I hadn't seen any footage of most of them. Never would've imagined J. H. Williams III looks like that.

Is this worth watching? I'm concerned that if GM's on-camera persona is too embarrassing, it might plague me while I'm reading the comics. I mean, I've seen him on two-minute Newsarama videos, but a whole movie?

GM comes off as a pretty affable and straightforward chap, so there's not much embarrassing stuff there. There's a few of occasions when he starts talking mumbo jumbo about magic and cosmic stuff, but if you've read The Invisibles none if should come as a surprise. Mostly it's just Grant and his colleagues talking about his work, which seems like a good form for a documentary like this.

Also, the movie has the Official Origin Story (or at least Grant's version of it) of the beef between him and Alan Moore, which was totally new info to me. Seems like the feud dates back to mid-80s when Moore vetoed a Marvelman script by Grant which would've otherwise been published in Warrior.

yeah that was summarized upthread, I'd never heard that before.

does seem like a bit of a dick move by Moore.

there was a bit on Dr. Casino's Animal Man recap/blog thing about how Moore and Morrison have fundamentally different ideas about superheroes (Moore = BAD! Morrison = Great!) which seems to speak to a major difference in their approaches and worldviews - Moore seems much darker/cynical/nihilistic and Morrison is sorta the opposite

There's a pretty long bit of Morrison speaking on one of those disinfo dvds that's pretty decent.

I was reading a roundup of things that happened in 1981/1991/2001 as a retrospective, and I was kind of shocked to realize that Grant's New X-Men run started back in 2001. It doesn't seem nearly that long ago!

I was reading a roundup of things that happened in 1981/1991/2001 as a retrospective, and I was kind of shocked to realize that Grant's New X-Men run started back in 2001. It doesn't seem nearly that long ago!

― mh, Friday, January 7, 2011 12:13 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i was saying this on another thread! it's shocking to me imo

fundamentally different ideas about superheroes (Moore = BAD! Morrison = Great!)

Moore LOVES superheroes!

I think he used to, but hasn't in a long time.

Tom Strong, Top Ten?

ok, sub "five or six years" for "a long time"

moore is crap if that helps.

love from hell and watchmen but it's still a pretty good challops.

I believe Moore's position, which he summed up in his MR. MONSTER intro, was "Superheroes are fine, but they should know their place. And that place is off my lawn, dammit!"

i wouldn't want superheroes on my lawn either.

I just finished reading GM's entire Batman run from "Batman and Son" to "Batman Inc" (via Final Crisis) on and it's somehow revealed itself as one of my favourite Morrison things ever -- makes so much more sense (and is so much more fun for making more sense) read in one big swoop rather than month-by-month.

Complaint (because this is the internet, and there must be one): Paquette's art is pretty hideous.

so very far from the worst art on the run though! grrroosss T&A but at least it reads

I still have no fucking idea what happened in the last issue of ROBW, but I rolled with it. Maybe on the re-read.

The Dis-Info video is also available off a Google video search, at least that's where I saw it (Mr. Morrison drinking sloppily and all, in stunning TECHNICOLOR!) Have TALKING WITH GODS on my list to watch sometime, but since I'm writing and not lettering, I can't have movies on in the background while pounding on the keyboard.

Unfortunately, reading his more recent (say, after ALL-STAR SUPERMAN) monthly comics in the monthly form is often frustrating. I've been reading BATMAN AND ROBIN in chunks when say six or more months have backed up. Much more satisfying. Didn't care for INC until the last issue flipped my lid.

I have this theory about the fundamental differences between messrs Moore and Morrison being explicated through their view of magic (which is nothing more than another way to interact with the outside world.) Mr. Moore is heavily steeped in obscure arcana and Mr. Morrison says "Well, just find something that works."

comics in the monthly form is often frustrating. I've been reading BATMAN AND ROBIN in chunks when say six or more months have backed up.

this is crazy, his previous run was a frustrating mess chapter by chapter but B&R is supercharged thrillpower. the cliffhangers in those Frazer Irving issues!

PS BTW B&R finished over six months ago! You should have read it all by now!

I read it awhile ago. I get it pulled but still don't read it month-to-month. Hell, I don't read most things month-to-month. No patience for it.

also you missed out on reading Return Of Bruce Wayne and Batman & Robin concurrently, where each issue of each series was dropping hints for the next issue of the other series. so much fun!

also lol you are buying six months of a Fabian Nicieza comic that you are not even reading

I still have no fucking idea what happened in the last issue of ROBW, but I rolled with it. Maybe on the re-read.

Similar sentiments - that double page spread made my corporate comic month, though. Oh, and I liked how I began that ish in a state of desultory disillusion w/ GM and ended thinking "Man, he should write Wonder Woman next!"

It is interesting how common a reaction to GM comics is "I had no idea what happened there". Sometimes this is in a good way, but sometimes I get the idea that he ought to work a bit more on his plots. This may mark me out as a GM agnostic.

I think I accidentally picked up one B&R issue post-GM. Remember, Batman Inc. is the one to buy, now!

Anyone have a good recommended reading order for the B&R/ROBW issues? I want to have a friend read them, either in collected form or as cbr files, and think going through each individually wouldn't work as well.

DV, my impression has always been that GM comics are always tightly and impeccably plotted, but that plot elements are often revealed in the tiniest and easiest-to-miss ways. A sideways glance or a gesture made by a character in the background of a panel might reveal something hugely important; blink and you'll miss it. I usually miss it.

sometimes though he just writes some nonsense that is incumbent upon having some knowledge of his subject's history in order to get it (yes I am looking at you, Mister Miracle portions of Seven Soldiers)

haha yeah my drummer complained about that and then I loaned him my Fourth World Omnibus volumes

been keeping away from post RIP Batman stories as I was all event'ed out and wanted a break. Now it seems we are coming to the end of Morrisons batman run.

Now I've snapped and bought a load of TPBs online, looking forward to them coming.

I've accepted there will be no uber-compendium of this stuff, so just going to get stuck in.

will let you know how I get on. Should I go for ROBW first?

Wait until the last collection of the B&R material is out, then alternate reading the two.

Now it seems we are coming to the end of Morrisons batman run.

wha?

and yes, alternate ROBW and B&R issues

read the first ROBW last night. he needs to say "oh boy" after every time jump...

that's my only criticism.

and I think I remember reading that Batman Inc. had taken the character to where Morrison wanted to leave him, and Morrison was off to pastures new. but I think there are probably some golden handcuffs going on where he can do what he wants in DC as long as he brings in the interest & sales in Batman.

Batman Inc is Morrison's own ongoing, he's said he thinks he's got a year or two of stories left in him. (And that everytime he thinks he's getting near the end of Batman, he gets more ideas.)

(Also, Matt Seneca on the gayness of the opening issues.)

Big agnostic on Batman Inc after all that -- especially re: Bruce's new playboy character styling -- but that fourth issue was v. v. excellent. I like that Grant's been on Batman for almost five years, but hasn't done a "traditional" Batman story since Gothic.

I normally quite enjoy reading Matt Seneca, but (with respect!) I think he's confusing "queer" with "kinky". At any rate, that comment from "Automatic" is somewhat OTM.

I don't think he is... As he points out, there's is a long tradition of queer readings of books/movies/comics/etc to highlight queer subtexts in texts that appear heteronormative on the surface level. And (whether or not you agree with his intepretation) that's exactly what he's doing there. The way he interprets those panels, they're not just "kinky" (what does that word even mean?), but definitely queer.

Eh, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with reading against the grain, just that Seneca's "Hmm, that kind of looks like a cock!"-level analysis wasn't very deep, and I sort of expected better from him.

Besides, I think Grant puts the queer/kinky/sexy stuff front-and-centre anyway -- I mean, he's just re-outfitted with a giant codpiece. That's not very subtext-y.

Outside of the fact all the characters portrayed are costume fetishists, I don't think there's any "kink" to be had there, it's all pretty gay.

Besides, I think Grant puts the queer/kinky/sexy stuff front-and-centre anyway

He does - with the characters he himself created, or characters which are minor enough to be (re)made queer without DC objecting to it. But as Seneca points out in his article, Batman and Robin are way too big to be queered on the level of the actual text, DC would never allow it. Hence the subtext.

how is grant morrison's subtextual 'queering' any diff from the subtextual queerness of every other batman comic ever (cf fredric wertham)?

Morrison is know to be pro-queer, unlike many/most other Batman writers. Hence details like those mentioned in the article can more easily be interpreted as intentional, not accidental.

how do you know 'most other' batman writers are not 'pro-queer'?

I'm not saying they're absolutely not, but Morrison is one of the few who's publically known to be one.

Historically, queer readings of subtexts in "straight" texts have often been informed by the knowledge that one or more of the persons behind the text are queer themselves.