Comic Book Resources

I guess I missed GM's comment about his JLA Classified story. Care to fill me in?

I thought Morrison's "Al Qaeda vs. King Kong" line was both funny and appropos. Miller's project is fairly absurd, especially considering the apocalyptic tone Miller takes in describing current events (if you actually thought we were facing an "existential threat to civilization," would your first thought on how to fight that threat be "I'll write a comic about Batman punching bin Laden"?), and anyone who mocks Miller is completely justified in doing so.

That said, while Morrison's description of his plans for Batman certainly sounds cool, his actual work on Batman has yet to reflect this. I think he's making a mistake in departing from his standard pack-it-to-the-gills storytelling style; his instincts clearly still pull him in the direction of the "ten thousand funny ideas at once" approach, but in toning it down he just flings out one or two funny ideas that can't sustain a full issue. Again, he could prove me wrong next issue, and maybe he will, but right now I'm not feeling it.

What was Morrison's line about JLA Classified being in continuity or not?

I don't even like Miller's work all that much, but Morrison's comment is really stupid. I can't believe I used to think the guy was such a genius when I was younger because as I get older he seems more and more like a mildly clever charlatan with really good pop culture references.

Captain America fought real-life threats like the Nazis. Why not mock Joe Simon and Jack Kirby? His heroes that he waxes rhapsodic about in every All-Star related interview, Seigel and Shuster, invented the concept of using superheroes to fight real life villainy by sending Superman to fight Hitler. WHy not accuse them of belittling and trivialize troops? Also, far as I know neither of them enlisted in the military. Cops fight real-life serial killers, organized crime and insane lunatics all the time, when Morrison says that Batman has singlehandedly eradicated crime in Gotham, does that mean Morrison has trivialized their real-life efforts? Why doesn't Morrison join the police force before he writes stories about Batman fighting crime.

Morrison is doing nothing here except picking on safe targets. It's about Muslims, and that's a major no-no amongst "progressives," so this is just a self-serving critique to show how "enlightened" he is. If he had any consistency to his opinion, he'd go after Siegel, Shuster, Kirby, Lee, and anyone else who had heroes fighting Nazis, he'd go after all the Silver Age writers who had superheroes fighting commie russkies, but no, those would require consistency of conviction and actual guts. This is just his usual method of giving his acolytes something to ejaculate over.

And the whole "can't support a cause unless you enlist" is bunk. If that's the case:

*Don't call for intervention in Darfur unless you're willing to enlist the UN peacekeeping effort

*Don't speak up for gay rights unless you're willing to sleep with a man

*Don't support abortion unless you're willing to volunteer in an abortion clininc or better yet go to med school and be an abortion doctor

*Don't complain about police brutality unless you're going to join the police department

*Everyone who preaches about affirmative action, give up your job so that a minority can get it

*Don't complain about the government response to Katrina unless you flew down to New Orleans to help
the relief effort

*Don't critcize hunger in Africa unless you join the Peace Corps.

I've lost a lot of respect for Morrison and his cute shticks after this interview.

Wow, it would seem that somebody actually freakin gets it with Batman, and he had the stones to take on Miller! I'm glad somebody finally said and did so very bluntly! He could have done a whole other paragraph on the Al Queda thing as far as I'm concerned. I was pretty much with him the entire interview though I admit the Bat-Mite thing raises my eyebrow.

I have zero intrest in the cheap shock and schlockfest that is 52 so I'll just take a look at the Morrison stuff on it's own.

I'm a little concerned with his comment about the Joker though. While I don't necessarily want him just laughingly robbing banks again, I've never been that much into the big-blooshot eyed, gnarly yellow toothed sadist version of him either. It's hard to describe but I tend to prefer something like the animated series Joker where there is almost a refinement or element of class to what he does and from a darker point of view it's actually kinda funny.

Stuff like beating Robin with a crowbar or shooting Barbara Gordon and dragging Gordon naked around on a chain is kinda beneath him. Yeah, it's sadistic but where is the joke other than "Hahaha, watch me do gory stuff! Comics aren't for kids anymore!"

I guess my point is while we're giving Batman a much needed makeover, maybe the Joker could use one to.

Well, T., quite often Grant is "taking the piss" as it were, so it's not such a big deal. Besides, I thought Lee and Kirby and friends *did* all join the army. Quite a few creators did, back then. Doesn't really matter.

The interview was funny, there were some cool ideas hinted at... while his Batman has yet to light my pants on fire, it, along with Dini's 'Tec, is the best Batman in years.

To me, Morrison's rant came off as him just getting some frustration off his chest. Frank Miller has said a few things himself on the other side of the idealogical spectrum, so this just seems like an impromtu response. And the whole thing about referring to "graphic novel nonsense" made it seem like he intended to color his statement with a bit of post ironic humor, or something like that. And Kirby definately did join the Army. And the creators of Superman also joined up. It was when they were away that DC used an old pitch of theirs to create Superboy.

Actually, I agree 100% with Morrison here. He's saying things I've been saying for years. Propaganda comics, even when the real-world menace is indisputably monstrous, are total crap. They always have been.

I would indeed kill the sacred cow and go on to point out that Captain America beating up a comedically-portrayed Hitler and grossly caricatured German and Japanese soldiers is horribly fucking embarrasing in retrospect on multiple levels. Such stuff manages to simultaneously trivialize moral and humanitarian crises and make the ostensibly right side of things look petty and childish in the extreme.

To spell it out: Frank Miller can draw Batman beating up Osama and maybe even make it a halfway exciting action story. And tomorrow, twenty or so Iraqis or ten or so Afghans and a few soldiers will be turned into hamburger by an IED, an ambush, a rocket attack, or somesuch. And then a drawing of Batman hitting Osama seems fairly peurile to anyone over the age of three. For God's sake, superheroes fighting Nazis isn't so much some sort of wonderful pop culture trope as it is the legacy of an era when comics -- unlike Miller's -- were aimed at very young kids. And Nazis in comics now, well, they're generally either an ironic throwback reference, or an indicator of a writer too lazy to establish his villain's cred via actual storytelling skill.

Simon and Kirby had the excuse of not knowing about the extent of things like the death camps, the Shoah, and of working in an era when comics were deliberately juvenile. Even so, if you put their work in the context of what we know today about Hitler and Nazism -- things not widely known in 1941 in the U.S. -- it is almost impossible to take seriously or to treat as artistically meritorious. The situation it reduces and the historical figure it caricatures are simply too implicated in serious moral considerations to function properly as easy targets for a cardboard cutout superhero, or even a grim and serious but ultimately fantastical archetype like the Batman.

But they didn't know better, and the industry was producing children's lit on the quick and on the cheap. One can put it in perspective in the long run. Frank Miller, his wannabe soiphisticate fanbase, and his publishers' willingness to print the R-rated/18-certificate gloss he layers over his work all ought to know better and to do better than presume a comic with this basic premise is anything but "pomo" kitsch with an offensive subtext of trivialization just below the campy surface.

Batman vs. Al Quaeda is a spectacularly awful idea, and only with mighty efforts at reductivist argument or thoroughgoing denial will it seem otherwise.

When Siegel, Shuster, Kirby, etc. joined the army weren't they doing propaganda like HOW NOT TO GET THE CLAP: A BEGINNER'S GUIDE? Containing of course classic scenes like:

"IF THIS BE MY DESTINY...!!!"
"Not necessarily! Just zip it up for Christ's sake! The ARMED FORCES needs you, soldier!

"...Don't forget readers! Join us NEXT MONTH for another episode in the NEVER-ENDING BATTLE against VD! Until then, Excelsior!"

I don't see how Miller's lack of comparable service in such worthy causes makes his project any more or less offensive than Golden and Silver Age work with the same slant.

Propaganda is always silly from an artistic point of view, but back during WWII they at least had the excuse of believing that comics were a disposable medium. Nobody thought that their stories would still be around four decades later, much less that anyone would be talking about them, so they did all kinds of crazy stories whenever inspiration struck. Miller is doing something that's much more self conscious - a big propaganda graphic novel for our time - and that makes him proportionately sillier than the creators of yore.

Omar Karindu said:

"Batman vs. Al Quaeda is a spectacularly awful idea, and only with mighty efforts at reductivist argument or thoroughgoing denial will it seem otherwise."

I wouldn't go quite that far. It's a dumb idea, but with some changes it could still work, even as propaganda. If Miller drew a story where Batman goes after a terrorist group (either Al Quaeda or some stand-in) but then *fails* to bring them to justice because he insists upon doing everything himself, the story could work as a fantasy vs. reality parable. Maybe Bruce could then go undercover as a soldier and learn firsthand (along with the reader) what the war is like at ground level. At the end of the story Al Queda would still be out there, but Batman would have a new understanding of how deadly and ugly the conflict is, and a new appreciation for the soldiers who are out there fighting in it every day. It would still be propaganda, but instead of a power fantasy it could be somewhat educational.

Grant Morrison on whether his JLA Classified arc was in continuity:

Aquaman has no beard and John Stewart is Green Lantern so it's pretty much set in some kind of current continuity but I’m afraid it's not the gloomy 'adult' world of Sue Dibny's shredded lycra pants so keep well away if it's attempted rape you crave. Cannibalism, yes, rape, no. My DCU is a day-glo, non-stop funhouse, where the world is threatened every five minutes and godlike beings clash in the skies like fireworks.

Isn't that an amazing quote?

As for the Miller/Al Queda thing, I think it's pretty silly as well, but where I differ with Morrison is that I don't think it's the big deal he seems to think it is. Especially with the "he should enlist in the army" stuff. Just seemed too hyperbolic for me.

People: it's "al Qaeda", not "al Queda." No "u" there. The Global War On SuperBadEvilness has been going on long enough to spell their name right, I hope.

What I tend to like about Morrison's interviews is that they're often these over the top counter-points to the typical modern creator interview. You know, the ones where some creator thinks he's going to save the industry by showing us all how serious super-heroes are and says stuff like "the big red cheese is dead", or "I'm going to save the silver age from it's critics". Agree with him or not, Morrison does have a knack for pointing out that the stuff coming out today is just as subject to ridicule and skewering as the stuff that came out in years gone by.

To the point, really, how many of the old "Captain America punches the Japs!" stories are actually well-remembered? How many are considered great comics writing instead of mere historical curiosity? (The closest is Eisner's "The Leader" from THE SPIRIT, and that had at least one remove from reality.) Not to mention how it led to complete overexposure for the superhero genre to the extent that it took a decade for anyone to be interested again.

I don't see Miller doing a Batman vs. Terrorists as something to get worked up over. Morrison makes a few good points but I don't it would sway me either way in regards to buying the book.

The art I've seen so far for the Holy Terror book looks pretty good.

Wow, I'm amazed T.'s homophobic comments have gone unnoticed in the comments: "Don’t speak up for gay rights unless you’re willing to sleep with a man." I'm guessing this could correlate to, "Don't support civil rights unless you're willing to be black" or somesuch nonsense. People denied rights/stereotyped/hated is a tragedy anywhere, whether they're Muslims (because obviously since complaining about the post-9/11 stereotyping of Arabics as terrorist is trite and overdone; it's hardly worth mentioning...), Black, Women, Gay, Latino, Philippino, Eastern Eurpoean, Irish, Catholic, or anything. I don't understand how homophobia adn teh ensuing civil rights cases can be lumped into a different category than Black's civil rights, Women's, immigrants, or any other oppressed minority. Just becuase they're different does not mean they do not get rights.

Same goes for the comment hush-hushing police brutality, "Don’t complain about police brutality unless you’re going to join the police department," and the various others. So I have to be willing to completely contort my life to justify my admonition at "brutality" or an ethnic genocide?

Why, yes, that makes complete sense. I'm completely going to eschew morals and ethics.

Makes about as much sense as comparing 40's comics to 00's in terms of complexity, and saying that 60+ years of literary devlopment does not make such comparisons inconsistent. (Yes, if Simon and Schuster released their Superman sotires and Simon and Kirby released their Captain America, the material would be downright offensive)

*sigh*

With all due respect Mr. Hensel, what the fuck are you talking about? Did you actually read the entirety of the comment? T. was using those examples to criticise Morrisons attitude toward Millers comic book, not saying that they were good ideas.

Rice!
The Miller Parody was a definite LOL moment.

"People: it’s “al Qaeda”, not “al Queda.” No “u” there. The Global War On SuperBadEvilness has been going on long enough to spell their name right, I hope."

well, last time i checked, there still aren't any Es or Os in the Muslim alphabet. what they have are Is and Us. thus it's "Muslim" instead of "Moslem", "Muhammad" instead of "Mohammed". it was one of the first few things they taught us in Elementary Philippine Geography and History (at least in our school) here in Manila.

so, it's probably more "al Qaida" than "al Qaeda".

Sorry to carry on with this tangent, but what the heck is the Muslim alphabet?
Every Arabic word and name we English-speakers read has been romanized into the Latin alphabet. "Al-Qaeda" is by far the most common romanization I've seen. "Al-Qaida" is less popular and "al-Queda" is way less popular. The last spelling is the most-off from the pronunciation of the name and in fact looks like a trancription of the incorrect common American pronunciation of the name. It should have something like an "kaw" sound for the "qa" and a long e sound for the e or i.

I have never seen an official transliteration (from a reputable new organization, say) of "al Qaeda" spelled "al Queda." Putting the "u" in there is clearly a habit carried over from English, where q is always followed by a u. Variant transliterations of Arabic and Farsi names is no excuse to just spell those names however you want to spell them; just because "Khaddafi" can also be spelled "Qaddafi" doesn't mean it's kosher to spell his name with a W.

"I don’t see Miller doing a Batman vs. Terrorists as something to get worked up over."

How was Morrison getting "worked up" about it? Miller is the one who's worked up, saying Osama bin Laden is as deadly a threat as Soviet Russia. Morrison is just heaping mockery upon a richly deserving target.

And yeah, T.'s rant had some really weird and offensive stuff in there, but frankly I can't be bothered to get worked up about every oddball hyperconservative thing T. flies off the handle about.

Wait, isn't anyone offended by my rant?

*sobs*

Although Morrison painted it as a jab at Miller's inner monologues, I think it equally works as a slam on DC writers in general. Think about it, just about EVERY DC writer in the Dido era uses those over-the-top Miller monologues, but to an even worse degree, especially Meltzer and Johnuckanick (although Meltzer also adds cloying sentimentality to his monologues too). I don't know why so many DC writers have Miller on the brain so badly lately. He did seminal work at Marvel too, yet they don't seem as horrible at aping his inner monologues as DC is. DC writers always seem to be trying too hard to give their superhero comics that "noir edge" in the caption narrations and it just comes off as self-parody after a while. Luckily some of the latest exclusives don't seem to be as bad about this, like Morrison, Dini and Heinberg. I think Morrison can't openly mock his Miller-clone DC cronies because he has to work with them, so he picked on their stylistic "father" instead.

What I tend to like about Morrison’s interviews is that they’re often these over the top counter-points to the typical modern creator interview. You know, the ones where some creator thinks he’s going to save the industry by showing us all how serious super-heroes are and says stuff like “the big red cheese is dead”, or “I’m going to save the silver age from it’s critics”. Agree with him or not, Morrison does have a knack for pointing out that the stuff coming out today is just as subject to ridicule and skewering as the stuff that came out in years gone by.

The problem is, Morrison is becoming a parody of himself and opening himself to similar ridicule with his "I'm going to save the industry through 'mad non-sequitir ideas' and intrusive meta-commentary that makes the books more about him and his thoughts on comics rather than about the actual characters themselves.

With all due respect Mr. Hensel, what the fuck are you talking about? Did you actually read the entirety of the comment? T. was using those examples to criticise Morrisons attitude toward Millers comic book, not saying that they were good ideas.

David, thank you for giving me hope about reader comprehension. I have to wonder if people seriously misconstrued my point or if they got it but just played dumb to avoid countering it with intellectual honesty.

Wow, I’m amazed T.’s homophobic comments have gone unnoticed in the comments: “Don’t speak up for gay rights unless you’re willing to sleep with a man.” I’m guessing this could correlate to, “Don’t support civil rights unless you’re willing to be black” or somesuch nonsense. People denied rights/stereotyped/hated is a tragedy anywhere, whether they’re Muslims (because obviously since complaining about the post-9/11 stereotyping of Arabics as terrorist is trite and overdone; it’s hardly worth mentioning…), Black, Women, Gay, Latino, Philippino, Eastern Eurpoean, Irish, Catholic, or anything. I don’t understand how homophobia adn teh ensuing civil rights cases can be lumped into a different category than Black’s civil rights, Women’s, immigrants, or any other oppressed minority. Just becuase they’re different does not mean they do not get rights.

Why, yes, that makes complete sense. I’m completely going to eschew morals and ethics.

Way to miss the point, bro. I was using those deliberately ludicrous examples to show how dumb Morrison's logic about not criticizing Al-Qaeda without enlisting to fight them personally is when that logic is applied to other areas of criticism. If you agree that all those examples are ridiculous and offensive, then isn't is equally ridiculous and offensive to expect Miller to "completely contort his life to justify his admonition at "brutality" or an ethnic genocide" like Al Qaeda?

>Morrison is doing nothing here except picking on safe >targets. It’s about Muslims, and that’s a major no-no >amongst “progressives,” so this is just a self-serving >critique to show how “enlightened” he is.

Wow! Despite the fact that he didn't mention Muslims at all, you somehow manage to get all that out of the interview. Impressive! Please, direct me to the part of the interview where he picks on Miller for 'picking on Muslims'. Please!
All I noticed was the part where he speaks fairly complimentary against the soldiers who are ACTUALLY risking life and limb against Al Qeada in the war on terror, and how he feels they're doing more good than Frank Miller. A comment I agree with wholeheartedly. Now, do you disagree? If so, I'd LOVE to hear your justification.

Please, direct me to the part of the interview where he picks on Miller for ‘picking on Muslims’. Please!

As if he's explicitly going to admit that's his real reason.

It's a simple inference. If he was really against the concept of using superheroes to tackle real-life threats, why has he never spoken out about this before "Holy Terror Batman?" Superheroes have fought Hitler, Communist Russia, the Mafia, Communist China, Neo-Nazis, the IRA and others. Is it because Al Qaeda is more heinous? Nazis killed even more innocents than Al Qaeda. Communism killed more people than even Nazism. That can't be it. Is it different than the past examples because real soldiers fight Al Qaeda and we're disrespecting them? Real soldiers fought Nazism, Communism and Irish terrorists. Real cops fight crime in the streets. That can't be it. Is it because it trivializes a real-life tragedy? IN that case, maybe he should decry his own "New Adventures of Hitler," which one can argue trivializes the Holocaust. None of his purported reasons for hating this book explain why these past examples are okay, since they fail the same litmus test.

The only real difference left is that this book tackles Muslims and is written by a creator whose popularity has dwindled, while the past books tackle groups that are more politically correct to hate and were done by creators who are too lionized to criticize. Hence, he's appearing ballsy and principled while actually just picking on safe targets and being hypocritical.

I was wrong about one thing. I gave Morrison a pass when it comes to ham-fisted noir dialogue, until I realized his latest issue had this gem: "They stink of wet carpet, dog breath and incense. Hot. Sour. Six of them. Five. Over my shoulder the sound of leatherbound bibles opening and closing. Wing beats. Four."

Oops. Guess he's got a case of Miller-itis too.

>The only real difference left is that this book tackles >Muslims and is written by a creator whose popularity has >dwindled, while the past books tackle groups that are >more politically correct to hate and were done by >creators who are too lionized to criticize. Hence, he’s >appearing ballsy and principled while actually just >picking on safe targets and being hypocritical.

And again, I think you're simply reading what you want to read into it and simply pulling stuff out of thin air. He never said that superheroes shouldn't fight real world problems, did he? He never said people shouldn't criticize Al-Queda. All he was criticizing was Miller's self-importance and 'decadent indulgence', and that's fair game. You'll notice he doesn't say anything about the other comics that feature terrorists or evil Muslims. He only mentions Miller.
Like it or leave it, Miller's comic isn't going to do anything at all. It IS a self-indulgence, disguised as 'important work'. Read any of Miller's interviews - he really does think he's making a important stand, which is nonsense. Morrison's point is entirely valid, and has nothing to do with the criticisms of Muslims or anything else you seem to WANT it to be.
Now, I never said any of that either, so I'm simply going to skip over your justification of why superheroes should do it, as I never said they shouldn't
You're arguing points that neither of us made, to prove a point YOU want to make. At least it seems that way. A criticism of Frank Miller's attitudes towards comics is certainly not the same as a blanket hatred of all war comics, nor criticism of Muslim treatment, nor any sort of support for Al Queada. In fact, the tone in which he speaks of our troops fighting against Al Queada certainly seems to show that he holds them in high regard.

And the "as if he's going to admit that his real reason" is just another way of saying "of course, I have no way of knowing or proving that, but I sure WANT it to be true!" isn't it?
Although I admit I might be wrong, and Morrison's real reason is that he thinks it's perfectly dandy if anyone else does it, but if Miller does it he's wrong, cause he's a hack, and Morrison doesn't like him (which, indeed he does not). That's plausible too.

Kevin, personally I don't think I was "pulling it out of my ass." I've given my reasoning as to why I think Morrison's purported reasons for hating Miller's Batman book don't hold up to closer scrutiny. Granted I could be wrong, and you should feel free to disagree if my points don't sway you, but I wouldn't say I just pulled my conclusion out of thin air either.

And to criticize Miller's work as a self-indulgence rather than an important work? Sure, it probably is. I don't even like Frank Miller's writing, especially on Batman. But to have Morrison criticizing someone for disguising self-indulgence as important work or for being self-important? Why not just have Nicole Richie give nutritional advice or Ike Turner give marriage counseling while we're at it? After finally reading his Animal Man run last year, I don't really think Morisson has the grounds to accuse anyone of being self-important or self-indulgent.

The irony is that I like Morrison's writing much better than Miller's. I think Miller's unreadable a lot of the time. I like Morrison's writing usually, I've trained myself to ignore a lot of his self-indulgent metacommentary when I can. When he restrains himself to just telling a story instead of trying to be a shaman, like in JLA, he's incredible. It's just his "rockstar God shaman of comics" shtick in interviews that I hate.

IN that case, maybe he should decry his own “New Adventures of Hitler,” which one can argue trivializes the Holocaust.

Except it's not remotely similar- it's a hypothetical examination of what might have gone through Hitler's mind the one period he was (apocryphally?) in England. No punching-by-superheroes in there.

>Kevin, personally I don’t think I was “pulling it out of >my ass.” I’ve given my reasoning as to why I think >Morrison’s purported reasons for hating Miller’s Batman >book don’t hold up to closer scrutiny. Granted I could >be wrong, and you should feel free to disagree if my >points don’t sway you, but I wouldn’t say I just pulled >my conclusion out of thin air either.

(I can't do quotes right. I apologize.) Sorry if I seemed rude. You did give your reasoning, but I just feel it was just too much of a leap, and some of the things you said just seemed to be pulled in from nowhere (the Muslim thing, for instance). YMMV, though.

>And to criticize Miller’s work as a self-indulgence >rather than an important work? Sure, it probably is. I >don’t even like Frank Miller’s writing, especially on >Batman. But to have Morrison criticizing someone for >disguising self-indulgence as important work or for >being self-important?

Granted, Morrison is very self-important...but his self importance is limited to his work in the comics field and being the 'God of comics', which is fairly innocuous, (also, I'm pretty sure that most of what he says is self-parody) whereas Miller's self-importance is going on to make grandiose statements about making a difference in the war on terror and fighting terrorism, thru his comics, (and he seems to be dead serious), which to me is a bit tasteless. Going back to the Siegel and Shuster, or Jack Kirby war comics...I'm pretty sure they weren't as weirdly self-important or making such extravagant claims as Miller is - or at least, I can't find any examples of such...
I may be being hypocritical, but I can put up with one better than the other. Miller is really irking me these days.

Sorry if I seemed rude.

You didn't come off rude. Quite the opposite actually.