Grant Morrison and the Multiversity

   So, according to Wizard Magazine, Grant Morrison is working on a new project for DC Comics called The Multiversity. Kirk Warren over at The Weekly Crisis (who read it in Wizard) explains it quite well:

The Multiversity is a seven-issue series of one-shots, written by Grant Morrison, that will establish seven different Earths from throughout the Multiverse. These seven issues, while telling separate stories, will link together to reestablish the connection between the DCU and the Multiverse.

   Well, it all sounds very interesting and certainly (to me at least) more fun than a regular issue of, say, Teen Titans. But Morrison isn't the first to use the term, and I'm trying to figure out if there is any connection.

   George Fallis, a very smart guy and you should look him up, published a book in 2007 called Multiversities, Ideas, and Democracy. For precision, I'll quote the publisher's description:

Multiversities are sprawling conglomerates that provide liberal undergraduate, graduate, and professional education. As well-springs of innovation and ideas, these universities represent the core of society's research enterprise. Multiversities, Ideas, and Democracy forcibly argues that, in the contemporary world, multiversities need to be conceptualized in a new way, that is, not just as places of teaching and research, but also as fundamental institutions of democracy.

   The "multiversity," a term coined by Clark Kerr I think, replaces the university as the term that defines the post-secondary institution. Fallis describes the multiversity as an institution that evolved out of a mix of several ideas. The economic forces that shape so-called higher education and the historical tenets of the liberal education and the very idea of knowledge for its own sake all get involved here, and it's quite an interesting book. 

   Now, how does DC's multiverse fit into this? I'm not sure. Fallis's multiversity is an institution that encompasses a broad range of interests, and is shaped by a broad range of influences. Sounds a little like the DCU, but only a little. I don't think that trying to find direct analogies is going to do much good. I could be wrong, though.

   A far more tangential, but also more interesting, idea is that Morrison intends, like Fallis does with the university, to look at the problems that have accumulated around the concept of DC's super-heroes. In the second section of his book, Fallis argues that the preeminence of postmodern thought will lead to a relativism that threatens the university's core values of reason and democracy. This is where Morrison's project might relate: Fallis sees the conflict over the future of the university as a battle of ideas. 

   Morrison is interested in the importance of alternate versions of DC characters. Why? Well, partly it's a battle of ideas. Any multiverse project seems like a questioning of the tenets of the validity of an idea. Or, more specifically a narrative. And Morrison loves doing that. One such narrative, summed up quite succinctly in All-Star Superman #1 is Superman's origin: "Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientist. Last Hope. Kindly Couple." When you imagine a Kal-El who wasn't raised by the Kents, or who didn't come to Earth, or who isn't the last of Kryptonian, you are telling an alternate story. This alternate story cannot help but interrogate the Superman narrative. What is essential? What is the value of the original? Most of DC's Elseworlds projects are based around a single high concept (What if Bruce Wayne's parents didn't die?), but they question what is fundamental about the myths and narratives that shape DC's super-heroes. Morrison's multiverse project would participate in a similar interrogation of DC's mythic narratives.

   I think that Morrison's project is engaged in a deeper kind of interrogation than, say "What if Superman's rocket had landed in Communist Russia?" In part, he's trying to prove that DC's super-heroes can be commercially successful outside the market forces that have determined that only those series directly related to the Next Big Event. He's trying to prove, basically, that a Captain Marvel book can sell. Sure, Morrison is asking what makes Captain Marvel interesting, but he's also trying to provide an alternative to the story that, sure, Captain Marvel is interesting, but no one will buy his comic. To paraphrase Fallis, the problem with DC's publishing strategy is that it does not question, it blindly follow the directions of seemingly overwhelming global forces. I hope Morrison is interested in changing that.

Last time on Wonder Woman

   Having recently been reminded of Gail Simone's "Women in Refrigerators," I thought it would be interesting to pick up the most recent issue of Wonder Woman to see how it reflects her thinking on the issue ten years later (Really? Ten years?).

   The issues raised by WiR weren't so much about violence generally, or even violence directed at women, but about the gendered nature of the violence heaped upon female characters. The sexualized violence, the disempowerment. In responding to Simone's list, Ron Marz, who wrote the issue of Green Lantern featuring the Woman in Refrigerator scene (new Green Lantern Kyle Rayner comes home to find his girlfriend Alex DeWitt killed and stuffed into their fridge), responds that the causes of this problem are multiple. First, it's as much a supporting character issue as it is a gender issue (i.e. supporting characters suffer more because of the limited changes writers are allowed to make to leading characters), and a business issue (super hero comics are mainly purchased by males who have not, historically, been open to buying comics with female lead characters). 

   Wonder Woman #30 has plenty of violence. It also features a female supporting character who is possibly killed after being tortured on-panel. Pinned to her body is a note: "She screamed a lot! She was fun!" On the surface, it seems as if Simone has made the same compromises that Marz contends shape the gendered violence of comics.

   I don't read Wonder Woman regularly, and I haven't read anything Simone has written since Deadpool. But I think that this latest issue shows her engagement with issues of gendered victimization in interesting ways. Though I can't say that this is part of a project of hers, or the development of an ongoing theme in Wonder Woman, Simone seems to be trying to explore the same issues she raised as a fan with her WiR list.

   Wonder Woman's friend Etta Candy is tortured, by a Frakenstein's Monster of some kind called Genocide. Genocide is a weapon created by, among others, Wonder Woman's long-time nemesis Cheetah. Cheetah is of the opinion that acts of monstrous violence are "humanity's only real legacy" and she supervises the building of a creature made up of, in part, the "dirt where dictators had killed millions, all over the world." Violence is, clearly, one of the central preoccupations with this story. Oh yeah, and Genocide is a girl.

   Wonder Woman, herself, tortures Cheetah to get information on Candy's whereabouts. She even threatens to kill Cheetah, before cutting her face and preparing to cut off her tail. Cheetah's confidence is broken by the cut to her face, implying a degree of vanity that Wonder Woman is able to manipulate for information. This is Wonder Woman in full-on Kingdom Come mode, a warrior for whom violence has become the only option. She tells Cheetah that she is willing to torture her because she stands for the "preservation of innocent life. All other priorities are secondary." 

   It's hard not to read the two tortures scenes as parallel. Wonder Woman has adopted the ticking-clock justification for torture (most recently seen on 24 and those memos President Obama just released). Wonder Woman's actions, placed beside Genocide's, hardly paint the hero in a positive light. Both scenes are cases of women torturing women. Genocide's violence doesn't seem gendered: she would torture anyone for pleasure, and doesn't sexualize Candy in any way (she tries to inflict psychological damage with the information that Candy's husband, Steven Trevor, loved Wonder Woman first, but Candy doesn't bite). Wonder Woman's torture of Cheetah is a bit less straightforward. Cheetah does not believe that Wonder Woman will kill her, but, unlike Candy, she breaks under threats to her physical appearance. 

    Given Cheetah's claim that violence is humanity's legacy, it's interesting how Genocide isportrayed as a woman. Violence isn't gendered so much as it is embodied - it is an idea looking for a vessel. That this vessel, Genocide, is a woman isn't coincidental. Wonder Woman becomes increasingly violent throughout the issue. She has reduced her principles to the "preservation of innocent life" and nothing else. Simone isn't taking up the institutional and societal forces that shape gendered violence, but she is addressing the ways in which it affects women - those who suffer violence as well as those who commit it. Violence is an inheritance, it is passed on (the mother/daughter imagery with Cheetah and Genocide does not evoke Frankenstein and his monster accidentally). Quite an interesting approach, actually, and I'll be reading the rest of this story to see where Simone goes with it.

   Without having read the whole "Rise of the Olympian" story-line, I don't want to make any sweeping claims about Simone's position on gendered violence in super-hero comics, though she seems engaged with the topic. I'm tempted to read this issue as condemning Wonder Woman's use of violence as a means to an end, but I'm not sure that I feel safe in that position. Clearly, super-hero comics are built on retributive violence and Wonder Woman isn't going to suddenly become a pacifist at the end of this story-line. If she does, it won't stick. But as long as more is asked of her than to get pregnant with Superman's baby (cough*KingdomCome*cough), I'll be interested.

In Defense of Dan DiDio Part 3 of 2

   OK. So, Dan DiDio, executive editor of DC Comics, recently said the following over at Newsarama: 

But as we say, we’re not reverting to anything – we’re continuing a story. There are no reboots taking place. This is building on the existing stories and continuity of the DC Universe and giving us the chance to examine our characters in a new light by using characters that are familiar to everyone. There’s a reason that Hal Jordan is Green Lantern, which we’ve explained time and time again in his own series, and there will be a clear understanding of why Barry Allen is the Flash as we move on through Rebirth. 

   I think that this exemplifies one of DiDio's main problems in his interactions with DC fans: he tries to justify business decisions by explaining them as storytelling decisions. I'm sorry, Mr. DiDio, but we all know that these characters aren't real. Well, most of us know. And since they are not real, when you say that "there's a reason that Hal Jordan is Green Lantern" you aren't saying what you think you are. My inference is that you are suggesting that there is an intrinsic truth being developed by Green Lantern comics that justifies the publishing decision to bring Hal Jordan back to life/a regular series (something about a special destiny...I really can't understand that mythology no matter how hard I try). 

 

   Now, it only makes sense to have a STORYTELLING reason to explain Hal's return. But it doesn't mean that there isn't the possibility of writing stories where John Stewart has the special destiny and the regular series. I get the sense that Mr. DiDio is implying that there are reasons that have nothing to do with publishing that explain why John Stewart is not the star of Green Lantern every month. Now, I get that there is a balance between art and commerce, but Mr. DiDio seems to try to make us blind to the commerce part.

   DC has given the book to someone other than Hal Jordan before. They even made up an entirely new character back in 1994 with Kyle Rayner. That, like the choice to put Hal Jordan back in the starring role, was in large part a business decision: in both cases, Green Lantern wasn't doing very well, and they wanted to shake things up dramatically. What I think Mr. DiDio should be saying is that, within the comics themselves, story logic will support a publishing decision. There will a "clear understanding of why Barry Allen is the Flash" in the comic - in other words, Barry's return will be given an explanation within the bounds of the pages of Flash: Rebirth. But reason will be different than the EDITORIAL reason to bring Barry back from the dead. Which is, let's be honest, to sell more comics.

   

   DiDio's other problem is in the inaccuracy of his language. It's fine that he's reverting the DCU back to an older status-quo. It's his call. He's the executive editor. But he is reverting. When you go back to the way things were, that is pretty much the definition of reverting. He's trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Revert back to the "iconic" DC heroes while continuing to hold on the to continuity that DC has been trying so adorably to make sense of since the 80s. 

   It's not that the ideas are bad ones. It's that the man seems to have trouble explaining them. Or maybe he just doesn't think we'll notice.

PS - Is anyone else a little annoyed by how much lighting Barry Allen seems to be generating? Why does he shoot off sparks when he's crouching?

Kid Flash vs Fun

   I love DC's Showcase volumes. Sure, the paper quality is poor, the lack of coloring sometimes reduces the quality of the storytelling, but they give me a lot of comics for not a lot of money. Marvel's Essential volumes are similarly great.

   I was re-reading my Flash Showcase, and I realized something: Wally West was a narc. In his first adventures, he puts the kibosh on a "gang" (who are much closer to the Little Rascals than to the Bloods), kids who play chicken with go-carts, Beatniks (who are apparently a threat to the police, even though the sit around all day listening to music and playing bongos), and kids who wander alone at night. Kid Flash seemed originally intended for a spandex-wearing "the More You Know" public service announcement.

  

   But then Barry Allen shot him with a lightning bolt, his costume changed, and he joined the Teen Titans. So it all turned out fine.

Are You Going to Watch Wolverine?

   Unless it's an April Fool's joke, apparently a DVD-quality copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine (I might have missed a colon in there somewhere. How about we just call itWolverine, like pretty much everyone else) was leaked. Folks around the Interweb are pondering the significance. From what I can gather, it comes down to money and the question how this leak is a real-world experiment in the actual economic impact of piracy. And that will be interesting. 

   But that's a big picture thing. Made up of a lot of little pictures on computer screens. Why would you download Wolverine? Be honest: to watch it as soon as possible. You can argue that you're resisting the mass market, exploitative ticket pricing, or an unfair movie industry. But you can do those things without watching a downloaded movie. Just sayin'.

   I'm not saying that piracy is wrong, or that downloading a movie is stealing in the same way that purse-snatching is, but it's a little disingenuous to argue that by watching Wolverine before May 1 you're sticking it to the man.