Grant Morrison S/D

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.

dunno, just seems like a contradiction to me - that 'queerness' can be deduced from a 'close reading' that relies so heavily on extratextual knowledge about an author's private life and feelings and intentions (and of course, what's said in public discourse isn't ALWAYS 100% honest, accurate or reliable.)

dunno, just seems like a contradiction to me - that 'queerness' can be deduced from a 'close reading' that relies so heavily on extratextual knowledge about an author's private life and feelings and intentions

Why do you think this is a contradiction? Seems pretty obvious to me that a person's private life affects his art, and authors are known to put all sorts of subtexts into their work.

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.

no way. Batman and Robin are the most queered characters (and the recipients of queer readings) of any comic book figures. Their entire dynamic (that way precedes Morrison taking them on) is their homoerotic relationship. It's totally silly to say that somehow only Morrison has the courage to queer them.

http://indiana.bilerico.com/2008/07/BatmanRobin.gif

x-post

it's not v subtextual if you're depending on the word of the author to validate the supposition that these 'hidden' meanings are there, or are intentional

i don't think this is good criticism because it automatically confers the status of 'truth' on an author's words, and assumes 'intention' is always clear, knowable, speakable. If another Batman writer doesn't publicly declare their 'pro-queer' values, then it seems to negate the possibility that their work is as 'interesting' or subtextually rich as the author who TELLS us so.

has anyone seen the cartoon adaptation of All Star Superman...?

Yeah, it's good. McDuffie (RIP) did a great job with the adaptation.

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.

no way. Batman and Robin are the most queered characters (and the recipients of queer readings) of any comic book figures. Their entire dynamic (that way precedes Morrison taking them on) is their homoerotic relationship. It's totally silly to say that somehow only Morrison has the courage to queer them.

I said DC wouldn't allow them to be queer "on the level of the actual text". Sure, there are plenty of queer readings of B&R comics, but they're always about the subtext. Or can you name a single official DC comic where Batman and Robin are explicitly queer? (The panel you posted is not such an example, because back in the day it was not uncommon to portray wholesome male heroes sleeping in the same bed in boys' adventure books and comics.)

Also, I didn't say "only Morrison has the courage to queer" Batman and Robin, I just said that "details like those mentioned in the article can more easily be interpreted as intentional" because of Morrison's previous queer-oriented work. Sure, there might've been other queer Batman writers who've done similar things, but Morrison is the only one I'm aware of.

it's not v subtextual if you're depending on the word of the author to validate the supposition that these 'hidden' meanings are there, or are intentional

i don't think this is good criticism because it automatically confers the status of 'truth' on an author's words, and assumes 'intention' is always clear, knowable, speakable. If another Batman writer doesn't publicly declare their 'pro-queer' values, then it seems to negate the possibility that their work is as 'interesting' or subtextually rich as the author who TELLS us so.

AFAIK know Morrison hasn't told anywhere that his Batman has a queer subtext - Seneca's reading is simply based on the knowledge that Morrison favours queerness in his works, not on any actual admission by Morrison. IMO taking into account the artist's former work and his background is a perfectly valid way of reading texts. If you remove the author and his intentions completely from the equation, you could read any text pretty much any way you want to, which would render any subtext meaningless. Taking the author into account has always been the most popular way of reading texts, and I'm sure most authors are well aware of that. (For example, the various Morrison avatars that appear in his comics are a subtext that would be pointless if we didn't know about Grant Morrison the person outside his comics.) To me it seems perfectly natural to be more attuned to queer subtexts in the works of Oscar Wilde or Tennessee Williams (to use Seneca's two examples) than, say, in the works of Ian Fleming, since you're more likely to find them in the former than in the latter.

Yeah, it's good. McDuffie (RIP) did a great job with the adaptation.

It was okay, but if you've read the comics it doesn't really add anything new to them, as it follows them almost verbatim, except for dropping a few subplots (such as the Bizarro planet one). Also, it doesn't include anything from "Neverending" (issue #10), which is kinda understandable, as that issue doesn't have to do with the main plot, but it's also sad because #10 is perhaps the best single Superman story ever.

That said, I think the movie actually improved upon the ending of the comic by changing Luthor's role in it in a small but significant way. I won't spoil it by saying anything more.

I want the Blu-ray just to hear Grant and Bruce Timm's commentary track.

Tuomas, I think we might (in part) be having a linguistic difference here, because I would never use the word 'subtext' to describe, say, the Morrison 'avatar' in Animal Man (and I think that character functions perfectly well without the reader needing to known anything about the 'real' Grant Morrison.) I still believe you're seriously overestimating the 'daring' or whatever of Morrison's 'queer Batman' - and you picked a very poor example in Ian Fleming, whose work is FULL of queer subtext (and foretext), more than almost any other 20th Century popular writer.

Also, 'reading any text pretty much any way you want to' is to my mind the whole pleasure and point of reading/writing abt other texts. Death to the tyranny of the author, here's to the reader's liberation movement etc etc

IMO those early Morrison issues are so lightweight that if he wasn't playing with some subtextual themes, they're borderline mediocre.

because I would never use the word 'subtext' to describe, say, the Morrison 'avatar' in Animal Man (and I think that character functions perfectly well without the reader needing to known anything about the 'real' Grant Morrison.)

The AM avatar is the only exception, IMO, because in that comic it is flat out spelled that he is Morrison, so he is an author avatar on the level of the text, not subtext. All his other avatar characters certainly function well enough on their own as unique characters (that's the surface level of the text), but the subtext is that they are also Morrison's avatars, and knowing that subtext makes many of those characters, as well as Morrison's whole body of work, more interesting. And my point was that it's hard to see that subtext unless you're at least somewhat familiar with Morrison outside his comics. Sure, you can say "death to the author!", but cases like this one prove that taking the author into account can provide for a deeper reading experience.

Anyway, I guess you're right that picking up Fleming as an counter-example was bad choice, because I've only read one of his books, and that was years ago. But my point still holds: it makes more sense to look for queer subtexts in the works of artists who are known to be queer, since you're more likely to find them there, and said subtexts are often more obvious too. I'm not saying you can't find such subtexts in the works of "straight" artists, my point was just that knowing Morrison's background makes it easier to interpret things like the panels Seneca pointed out as an intentional subtext.

read a galley copy of his new book over the weekend - mostly a very entertaining history/overview of American and British superhero comics. Some choice barbs for Alan Moore and the Image guys. I started to skip some stuff towards the end when it got into more auto-bio territory, but his take on the various periods are generally great, insightful, and really funny.

Didn't know about this. Any idea when it's coming out?

Yeah, I want this as soon as I can get it.

:: checks amazon ::

Supergods? July 19th?

later this summer I think...?

http://technoccult.net/archives/2011/04/30/supergods-grant-morrisons-book-on-super-heroes-gets-a-cover/

Cool. Will anticipate

Amazon has this to say about the upcoming Flex Mentallo

Collected for the first time, an early classic from the ALL-STAR SUPERMAN team of Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely, newly recolored.

What's up with that? IIRC the colours in the original comic are perfectly fine.

different paper stock to blame maybe?

Pretty sure that they're recoloring it for the stock and to update it. I seem to recall that the same person who is recoloring WE3 is doing it, but might be misremembering. I'll be happy to have it all in one place but will treasure the single issues (and I can't say that about many books now.)

I currently treasure my .cbr's so i'll be happy to get a physical copy

That's how I read it first, actually. Also the first files I loaded onto my digital reading device thingy.

So has anyone been able to work out whether Batmoz is going to be completely fucked up by the new DC plans? It seems as though it can't help but be, despite various assurances otherwise.

Apparently Batman Inc will take a hiatus once it gets to the point of the reboot, and will then return in 2012 as a mini-series. It's unclear at the moment if Morrison can set the story in the continuity he established, or if the reboot changes will be in effect.

Apparently Dick is going to be Nightwing again? I don't know, it sounds to me like DC is fucking over Batmoz and he'll leave all the titles soon.