BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


We3 #1

 
  

Page: 1234(5)678

 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:32 / 29.08.04
I don't see how you argue that The Filth marked the start of Morrison's desentimentalization (ouch!) of animals. It surely depends on us seeing that Greg/Ned's love of his pet cat is understandable and worthwhile. It's based around us empathising with his feelings for the cat. It's very probably based on Morrison's own experiences with a dying cat. I just don't see how this fits in with a view that this comic represents a shift towards viewing animals coldly or objectively.

And I'd disagree that We3 depicts animals unsentimentally too, to be honest. Why are so many people posting variants of "oh I'm gonna cry, I just know it...my own cat was called Tinker" if this is a hard-ass representation of animals as killing machines?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:54 / 29.08.04
Bollocks to chimps. Number 4 HAS to be a badger. Or I will cry.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
22:10 / 29.08.04
Having thought about it a little more I will concede one further thing about "GUD DOG".

The first time Bandit says "gud" ("I. M. GUD.") he means "in good health"; "I'm very well", "I'm fine".

The second time he says "gud" ("GUD DOG.") he means "well-behaved", "obedient"; "what a clever dog."

So that is a shift in the meaning of GUD/good. But it's not a shift towards "good" meaning "morally good" in a more fundamental sense -- a dog who does impressive stuff and obeys commands, which is what Washington is commenting on, is not a morally good dog -- and it's not a shift from "good" to "God".

There is no reason we should assume Bandit would use "GUD" to clearly mean "good", and then use the same word "GUD" to mean "God".

I am finding it quite remarkable that I haven't once put this comic away (ie. out of reach of the computer desk) since buying it on Thurs.) I know it's a bit ridiculous debating this single conversation between a man and a talking dog, but what else are you gonna do while you wait for issue #2.
 
 
--
22:18 / 29.08.04
Of course there's sentimentalism involved... The covers of the comic plainly show that these animals used to just be normal housepets until Man converted them into ruthless killing machines.
 
 
goodkingwenceslaus
23:25 / 29.08.04
I think people may be misunderstanding me when I argue that Morrison is in the process of reexamining some of the more sentimental notions about animals expressed in Animal Man (which is, by the way, without a doubt my favourite comic book series of all time...)

I'm not arguing that (here or in The Filth) Morrison is saying we shouldn't care about (these or any other) animals--if I thought he was doing that, I would be extremely hostile to the books, because animal rights/liberation is just about the most important thing in the world to me--I am saying that he is moving toward a clearer picture of these animals. Yes, Greg loves Tony. However, it is equally clear that (unlike the dolphins in Animal Man #15) Tony doesn't have the answers to the kinds of questions that humans can't help asking... Tony, if you'll recall, spends all of his time either nuzzling Greg or staring at food!

Dave
 
 
goodkingwenceslaus
23:36 / 29.08.04
just a little more:

Morrison's work has always stressed a very interesting paradox: how can we love animals who live to kill whilst condemning human beings who behave the same way? It can only be because we know that humans can choose not to act upon instinct...

The difference I find in Morrison, of late, is a less romantic view of what it would be like to be a purely instinctual being, and a more nuanced understanding of the burdens that language imposes upon its possessors. Words are abstractions, and when you start using abstractions, your mind splits in half--and I still maintain that that's what happens to Bandit in the scene we keep referring back to... In any event, we'll know soon enough if that's where Morrison is headed in We3!

Dave
 
 
miss wonderstarr
08:33 / 30.08.04
Your idea about words as abstractions and the effect of those abstractions on human psychology could be explored usefully and at length with regard to The Invisibles (Key 23 making words real; the failure of language in the American military base; Robin in her writing-sphere with words circling around her; the final sentence becoming abstraction) and The Filth (LePen's words as physical, circling objects again). I'm not going to do it but someone else could.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:44 / 30.08.04
I think that the art is pretty fantastic, but the story is just okay. I don't really care about the story at all (not really having any characters will do that...), but I admired the storytelling on a technical level.

It's better than Seaguy, though. Seaguy was a big let down for me.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:51 / 30.08.04
I take back the "no characters" thing a bit, because I already really like the cat a lot.
 
 
CameronStewart
13:20 / 30.08.04
>>>It's better than Seaguy, though. Seaguy was a big let down for me. <<<

I was wondering why you were conspicuously absent from the Seaguy threads...

 
 
FinderWolf
13:47 / 30.08.04
ahh, don't worry, Cam...Flux's tastes tend to be in...well, flux. With all due respect, flux...I understand this kind of stuff just isn't your thing, for the most part.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:28 / 30.08.04
Well, the big reason why I was absent from the Seaguy threads is that by the time I'd get to them, they were a hundred or so posts long, and I didn't feel like wading through them. I haven't had a lot of time for Barbelith lately, so I kinda avoid the massive threads.

It's also due to the fact that I'm not quite sure how I feel about Seaguy. There are a lot of conceptual things that I liked about it, but the pacing and structure seemed a bit off. I enjoyed your artwork, but I think that the colors were sometimes too muddy. I tend to like your art more when it's more simple and you do your own coloring.

I ought to reread the whole thing again. I don't think that I was ever really in the mood for Seaguy when it came out, and I might enjoy it more later on.
 
 
The Natural Way
15:15 / 30.08.04
I love the dreamy, fugue-like structure of stuff like Seaguy. Never will understand why, for some of us here, everything has to be a "proper story" (except if it's David Lynch). I think too many Lither's assume it's accidental or something....

Sorry, Dave, yr over-complicating something very simple. All this "Gud"/"God" crap..... Honestly! It's a fucking dog looking up at you all doe-eyed and innocent and asking "Is dog good?"/"Is good dog?", and that's all it is. It's there to freak you out a bit ("Aaaarghah! Talking beast!") and to induce soppy feelings ("Yes, yes, whosagoodboy, then?"). There are no - I repeat: NO! - philosophical implications there whatsoever. I'm happy to talk symbol and metaphor, but this kind of speculation's just creative writing 101.

And it isn't interesting, it's BORING.

And with that the angry, grumpy man jumped down from his high horse and attacked the gang of fools with his fists....
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:06 / 30.08.04
Yup. I read it as a dog doing what dogs do. Only with words. I actually found it very touching (but then I'm totally a dog person- if the dog had just said "fuck off", I'd probably have thought it was the sweetest way to tell anyone to fuck off ever).

Honestly. If your dog could talk, what would it say? I think it'd be more likely to be along the "good dog?" lines than theological speculation. They leave that shit to us dumb fucking humans.
 
 
goodkingwenceslaus
23:24 / 30.08.04
i never argued that God was part of this conversation--someone else back there did that... I did, however, maintain that Bandit is wondering about the word "good", just as he must have been wondering about "decommissioned", since he took the trouble to conjugate the verb...

I'm sorry if this stuff doesn't interest everyone, but it interests me a great deal.

Dave
 
 
goodkingwenceslaus
23:28 / 30.08.04
also--on the "they leave that shit to us dumb fucking humans" front--yes, you're right, but a dog that talks will immediately be forced to deal with the same kinds of things that everyone else who possesses language does...

Dave
 
 
the Fool
08:13 / 31.08.04
one thing I noticed with the ambiguity of the 'save' thing is it delays the certainty of we3's escape. The command to keep them bound is not completed but is it already in place? Will they be able to get out? We only know for certain when the guards vanish from their post at the door.

I so loved that sequence. I loved that you could trace the movements of all the people through the building. What was happening when.

I loved the whole truck going back to the facility, and the absolutely amazing cutaway drawing of the truck. It read like a movie. But I can't imagine a movie quite capaturing that graphic yumminess of that 2 page spread. It has to be one of the favourite things I've ever seen Mr Quietly draw.

I really really enjoyed this and can't wait for the next issue...
 
 
miss wonderstarr
08:56 / 31.08.04
I am starting to hate all this "it's as good as a movie", "wow this would be a great movie" biznizz.

It's a comic. It works fabulously as a comic. Why can't we (you) accept that? I saw The Bourne Supremacy the other day. A good old-fashioned spy thriller. I enjoyed it. I wasn't sitting there thinking "this is a good movie...looks like a comic!" or "can't wait for the comic adaptation!"

Haven't we (you) got to the stage where a comic can be accepted as good in itself, without comparison to cinema as if cinema were the superior medium and comics have to strive to match up to them -- with the highest form of acclaim being adaptation to film?

It didn't look like a film to me so much as a KIDS' PICTURE BOOK. The cutaway of the truck, the security-cam sequence where you can follow the little stories of the tea-lady, the guards, the various scientists... even the cover, as others have said about We3 #2 in particular.

It is really getting my goat the way cinema seems to be regarded by intelligent comics fans as something comics should aspire to and the best comics compare to.
 
 
_Boboss
10:29 / 31.08.04
i've not seen a film in years that i enjoyed as well as this comic. trips to the comic shop are so much more satisfying than trips to the video shop.

i think given what is known of morrison's fondness for mystical inspiration, palindromes and suggestive dialogue (flight 23 leaving through the K9 doorway) that, yes, we are meant to be thinking of a whole complex of god/dog/good associations flying around in that exchange - it is not unreasonable to think that humans are a dog's equivalent of god, or that even a dog might realise that being loaded with tons of gunnage and a few deadly scraps of language might change this age-old relationship. historically some human societies have openly worshipped dogs but in the west they have been replaced in many of their old functions by technology, and are now generally treated like an independently mobile toy. or soldier. recent inflammatory chaomage type statements along the lines of 'people like dogs because they teach humans how to be slaves' are also bubbling under here i think.

i'm surprised folk have worked out the layout of the building from the cctv shots, i get a slightly different impression of the action every time i read it. maybe after a few more reads these'll condense into a more definitive version, we'll see. the skillest, paciest shot is of 1's muzzle as it goes all fierce, a great lead into the faster tempo of the next spread.

just fucking brilliant basically. only grinch is the bullets shot that's been on my desktop for the past few months is better than the version that made it to print - better definition on the projectiles and no loss in the central crease. never mind.
 
 
DaveBCooper
10:30 / 31.08.04
Well, coming in late to the party, but :

Enjoyed this a lot. Some of the storytelling stuff was both inventive and a little tricky at first read, but a re-look, or a slower pace of reading, makes it all seem clearer. As a kid reading comics featuring alternation between two scenes I found it a bit tricky at first, but familiarity and paying attention paid off there, and I’m sure it will now.

In answer to the comments about the use of the screens being like Dark Knight, I thought it was more like Chaykin’s use of TV screens in ‘American Flagg!’, but indeed Eisner had probably done something similar several decades earlier.

Have high hopes for this series, though I hope that the ‘Incredible Journey’ structure the end of the first issue is suggesting is played out; by which I mean that I hope that we see a completion of the tale, which I feel was sadly lacking in NXM or even Seaguy. The latter actually frustrated me more as a reader in having things happen off-page or for no immediately apparent reason, as Cameron’s art is very narratively clear, unlike in NXM when I frequently couldn’t tell what the jiggins was going on (didn’t even recognise Quentin Quire in the final issue).
So as issue one suggests a homeward bound story, I hope that we’ll see that played out, without the apparent derailing of the story, or narrative short-cutting, which I feel some of Grant’s recent work has featured, and which I feel undermines much of the originality of the underlying ideas.
Throwing out mad ideas all over the shop has become something of a trademark for Grant’s writing, but within, say, JLA, he did so within the classic beginning-middle-end structure of storytelling, and I feel that the final component has been kind of missing, or blurred by a lack of narrative clarity, in recent times.
A fact which I fear is only underlined by people online (including here) expending large numbers of words telling us what’s going on, what Grant’s doing, etc, etc. It shouldn’t need an on-line appendix to make clear what’s going on...

But I digress. We3 issue 1 was very good. And I haven’t even mentioned the art, but what can I say ? Class act as usual. Love the detail on the cover – logo on the keyring, details on the magazines, and even memory cards in the PS2. And the blurring of Bandit’s tail, and the big wideopen freindly eyes. Ah, bless.
 
 
FinderWolf
12:27 / 31.08.04
>> in NXM when I frequently couldn’t tell what the jiggins was going on (didn’t even recognise Quentin Quire in the final issue).

off-topic// I would imagine not many people did - silvestri's QQ was pretty different looking than Quitely's. The pink hair was the only indicator (that and the hairdo itself). end off topic///
 
 
Triplets
20:07 / 31.08.04
We3 #2

Morrison and Quitely continue their unique "Westernized manga." A cyborg dog, cat and rabbit tear through everything the military turns against them, only to come face-to-face with a teeming wave of frenzied, cyber-enhanced rats. And in a bloody battle already filled with considerable cost, the three will make an unforgivable mistake of fatal consequence...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:19 / 01.09.04
i'm surprised folk have worked out the layout of the building from the cctv shots,

I wasn't one of them, I'm afraid- the more "manga" parts of the comic I found hardest to follow- I tend to concentrate on the text first and THEN the pictures (I don't seem to have a very visual brain for some reason), which meant I actually found We3 quite hard work. Very rewarding work, and well worth the effort- I fucking love it!- but more concentration-heavy than I'm used to.

But this did remind me of something Morrison said at that ICA thing a while back, about how he loves Quitely because he visualises an entire three-dimensional world and draws pieces of it, rather than unrelated images that hopefully won't contradict each other.
 
 
FinderWolf
15:34 / 01.09.04
There's a big We3 Morrison intereview now up at Newsarama!
 
 
FinderWolf
16:09 / 01.09.04
>> Luckily for me, I have neither kids nor rats so the value of their lives can be a philosophical problem rather than a practical one.

I love this guy.

And rocks out on the big SAVE discussion, clearing it all up.

Great interview.
 
 
Warewullf
16:52 / 01.09.04
GM: Some people seemed a little confused by the 'Save' sequence on the computer screen. God help them, I know, but hopefully I can clear it up - what we're seeing is simply the command to execute the security locks on the animal harnesses. The animals are unharnessed to eat, Roseanne is supposed to lock them down for their impending euthanasia. But she doesn't press the SAVE button and so we know the harnesses remain unlocked, allowing We3 to react and escape the minute they're threatened by the doctors with syringes. The cursor flashes on 'SAVE' to show us that Roseanne hasn't executed the command, to build tension - and also because 'SAVE' has a nice double meaning in the circumstances.

Ohhhh....
 
 
Sekhmet
16:54 / 01.09.04
Linky!

Morrison on We3 at Newsarama
 
 
miss wonderstarr
19:14 / 01.09.04
I like and respect Grant Morrison, but you know, bullshit. It's his failing as a storyteller if that meaning wasn't obvious from what he told Quitely to show. The cursor isn't clearly "flashing" on SAVE. We aren't told the animals are unharnessed to eat or that Rosanne's supposed to lock them down again. A bunch of intelligent readers didn't get what he intended from that sequence.

So God help you, Morrison you arrogant fucker. Because you just lost my £2 for We3 #2. Yes, and £3. In case your addition's as bad as your storytelling, that's £4 you just lost. I'm sure a lot of other people will agree with me and this is just the start of your losses. You broke the golden rule, Grant -- don't insult the people who pay your rent.

PS. I won't be buying Seven Soldier either. Now who's the loser.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
20:09 / 01.09.04

PS. I won't be buying Seven Soldier either. Now who's the loser.


uuummm...
 
 
FinderWolf
20:23 / 01.09.04
I feel that sure, the comic script could have been a tiny bit more clear, and Grant may not quite see that it was slightly unclear, but overall it's not a big deal to me. I certainly don't think boycotting his future work is warranted.
 
 
Triplets
21:36 / 01.09.04
PS. I won't be buying Seven Soldier either. Now who's the loser.

That would be you.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
05:00 / 02.09.04
So God help you, Morrison you arrogant fucker. Because you just lost my £2 for We3 #2. Yes, and £3. In case your addition's as bad as your storytelling, that's £4 you just lost. I'm sure a lot of other people will agree with me and this is just the start of your losses. You broke the golden rule, Grant -- don't insult the people who pay your rent.

PS. I won't be buying Seven Soldier either. Now who's the loser.

Wow. That was actually kind of uncomfortable to read. You seem incredibly angry. I try not to judge a work by how the creator acts, or what he says or does (before anyone brings it up, yes, even if it's Hitler. If Hitler writes a kick ass comic book or directs a really good movie I'm going to check it out).
 
 
Jack Denfeld
05:02 / 02.09.04
Oh yeah, and I really liked the story and thought the art was the best comic art I've seen all year.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
06:56 / 02.09.04
I'm sure a lot of other people will agree with me and this is just the start of your losses.

Yes, I'm sure it's all downhill from here, until one day a forgotten and destitute Morrison comes crawling and weeping to kovacs' door, begging for forgiveness, storytelling advice and - most important of all - that four quid.

Problems!
 
 
wicker woman
07:48 / 02.09.04
Sorry, Dave, yr over-complicating something very simple. All this "Gud"/"God" crap..... Honestly! It's a fucking dog looking up at you all doe-eyed and innocent and asking "Is dog good?"/"Is good dog?", and that's all it is. It's there to freak you out a bit ("Aaaarghah! Talking beast!") and to induce soppy feelings ("Yes, yes, whosagoodboy, then?"). There are no - I repeat: NO! - philosophical implications there whatsoever. I'm happy to talk symbol and metaphor, but this kind of speculation's just creative writing 101.

Oy. For both Varriage and, to a lesser extent, kovacs... first of all, I mostly threw that suggestion out there because, as I said, Grant wrote this. Which, as much as I like Grant, means that a sentence could have it's own entire meaning seperate from any real connection to previous narrative.

Second, had I actually been all that serious with this suggestion, I might have actually bothered to expound on it a little more than I did. No one else seemed to have a bug up their ass about throwing anything else to discuss about the issue out there, so I tossed that in the air. No more, no less.

There are no - I repeat: NO! - philosophical implications there whatsoever.

Thas' funny, see, I could've sworn the writer was listed as 'Grant Morrison', and not 'Varriage'. I'll have to dig the issue out again.

but this kind of speculation's just creative writing 101.
That's... needlessly insulting. But ok. Again, didn't have all that much invested in that particular train.

Besides which, there's a mistake being made in the pursuit of this; in that what we, as humans, would consider a "God-being" may not necessarily be "God" for a dog imbued with greater cognitive abilities, but that's still the standard being applied. Or maybe the animals are all atheists. Not a big concern either way.
 
  

Page: 1234(5)678

 
  
Add Your Reply