BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Comic Books >

Is Grant Morrison wasting his energy on superhero books?

  
 
boychild
13:13 / 16.11.05
Ok then, here is my first proper-non-spam-and-eggs post ... which may have been asked already:

It occurred to me that perhaps Grant Morrison is wasting his time and energy on all this superhero stuff he has been writing, for quite a long time now, for DC/Marvel.

Im not saying he definitely IS, as I know there are some good arguements for writing superhero books (including if he just feels like it!).

But perhaps his thinking processes would be better invested into doing a broader range of stories/types? For him and us...

What do you all think?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:24 / 16.11.05
Morrison has always struck me as someone who has a passion for superheroes and related genres. While there are many comics writers whose best work lies elsewhere and whose superhero work seems like an exercise in paying the bills and raising their profile, he doesn't appear to be one. Despite the fact that my personal favourite piece of work by him is still probably Kill Your Boyfriend, I think the likes of Seven Soldiers, Seaguy, Doom Patrol and FF1234 are amongst his best work, whereas St Swithin's Day and The Mystery Play are probably not.

Whether what's best for him is best for the medium as a whole is another matter.
 
 
sleazenation
13:25 / 16.11.05
Quite a lot of ways at looking at this question.

While I think Morrison is at his strongest and best while avoiding superheroes, Kill Your Boyfriend being a notable example, he writes some of the most inventive and passionate loveletters to the genre and has demonstrated time and again his geeky knowledge.

He also likes getting paid and both DC and Marvel are more than willing to pay him quite well to work both on their top properties and his own little projects (provided they meet certain sales thresholds - it appears that seaguy failed at this hurdle)

What I'm trying to get round to saying is I'm not that certain Morrison has much of a desire to focus all of his energy on 'the great scottish graphic novel' - he's getting paid to do something that he appears to enjoy and has the opportunity to experiment without having to shoulder the risks himself.

Would I like to see Morrison do more creator-owned work in the vein of Kill Your Boyfriend or WE3 - sure, but I have a feeling that it might not be Morrison's heighest priority - particularly while he is having well-paid fun playing in DC's sandbox...
 
 
boychild
14:00 / 16.11.05
The thing is that any criticism of GM on this issue is going to be water off a ducks back because of his highly developed self image(s). So in way its all irrelevant - his personality is so impressive that you KNOW FOR SURE that he is doing the right thing as far as he is concerned and winning the 'meaning war' in his own life.

I mean you dont get a sense of someone who is doing it just for the money or who is guilty about his choices. In the pressure of the mainstream he is joyously swimming with the flow, only much faster... and so ending up just as free as if he went off on his own smaller side stream to more indie books.

BUT - speaking personally I WOULD like to see more of those indie/alternative books from him, as I would enjoy them more/get more out of them.

Anyway he is still doing a fair few such things. Did that book about mag!c ever come out? (pop mag!c, mod mag!c)- i havent seen it
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
14:00 / 16.11.05
grant's best works:

zenith

invisibles

we3

all of them are about super powers.

he certainly not wasting his talent writing such things.

tho, I'd like to see him tackle some non-sci-fi soap some time.
 
 
boychild
14:07 / 16.11.05
Hi Yawn,

Good point about those three books being excellent - but i was thinking of x-men/Justice type ones in terms of POSSIBLE energy wasting...

Anyway,can we say Invisibles was a superhero book? I have never thought of it as such - the characters had supernatural/magical powers, no? So its a 'Magickalhero' book maybe? Or maybe thats the answer - Grant sees superheros in terms of magick?
 
 
sleazenation
14:12 / 16.11.05
Or that Morrison sees it all as part of the same continum -

Superpowers>taking charge of your own narrative>magic
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:32 / 16.11.05
but i was thinking of x-men/Justice type ones in terms of POSSIBLE energy wasting...

I'd have to disagree with that. For whatever flaws it had, and there were a few, Morrison's New X-Men brought me back to reading them after seven or eight years. Like a lot of people I was sick of the convoluted senseless storylines that were the mainstay of the late 90's. New X-Men was all about evolution. He revived a great comic.

I've always found his work is best when it's dealing with the pop culture. The Invisibles is a fantastic snapshot of nineties fashions, trends, and themes.

You don't get more pop culture than super-heroes.
 
 
grant
14:34 / 16.11.05
How "well-paid" is superhero writing, anyway?
 
 
CameronStewart
14:50 / 16.11.05
>>>How "well-paid" is superhero writing, anyway?<<<

If you're someone of Grant's stature, and can be as prolific, it can be very well paid indeed (I was talking with Ed Brubaker a few weeks ago and we were discussing how writers get a lower page rate than artists, but they can also write 4 or 5 books simultaneously, which nets them more than the artist who can only draw one book a month).

Arkham Asylum remains the best-selling graphic novel ever, and it alone made Grant considerably wealthy. I'd imagine he still gets big royalty cheques for it.
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
15:00 / 16.11.05
alricht boychild!
 
 
sleazenation
15:11 / 16.11.05
Interesting to see if answer are any different when one poses the question 'Is Warren Ellis wasting his energy on superhero books?'
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
15:16 / 16.11.05
Or, is Warren Ellis wasting his talents on extended serial narrative, rather than collecting it all right from the get-go so we don't have to sit through issue after issue with nothing happening? The concepts are usually interesting, but the signal to noise ratio is a little off.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
16:18 / 16.11.05
I usually feel like I wasted my time with Warren Ellis, actually.

I mean... he never calls or anything.

Grant, like most artists, exerts a lot of energy on some projects and has fun with others. I think 7S is a fun piece and We3 was a deeply personal piece of work. Some ppl can appreciate both.

Personally I think he can do personal and meaningful work in the super hero genre (a lot of Doom Patrol fits this and certain issues of New X-Men), it's just been a while.
 
 
PatrickMM
19:22 / 16.11.05
My favorite Morrison works are the wholly original ones, The Invisibles, Flex Mentallo and Kill Your Boyfriend, but in terms of his 'serving the corporate trademark' books, I think New X-Men, Animal Man and Marvel Boy are perhaps the next three books I'd put on a list of his best works. So, even though I would probably prefer something like We3 to Seven Soldiers, so much of his corporate superhero work is outstanding that I always love reading it.

I think the crucial difference between Grant's work on a property like X-Men and Milligan's or Ellis' is the fact that Morrison steps into the universe like he owns it and writes the book in a way that makes it feel dynamic and relevant again. So many people who stop in for a run on X-Men are there just to do little riffs on stuff from the past and inconsequential stories, like they don't want to invest too much emotion in something that they won't own.

The thing I've noticed about all of Grant's longform work on corporate titles is that when his run ends there's no need to go on, he writes the end of his run like it's the end of the book. I can't imagine what would happen in Animal Man 27, everything that needed to be said was said in 26, and similarly, the last issue of New X-Men has such closure that everything after it feels like fanfic.

Basically, unlike nearly every other writer out there, Grant writes these superhero books like he owns the characters, and as long as he does that, I've got no problem with him writing them. What will bother me is if he pulls a Bendis and completely stops his creator owned work, it's the mix that works.
 
 
This Sunday
20:13 / 16.11.05
First off, I have to (re)state that superheroes are not all "corporate comics" any more than superheroes are "all comics."
Secondly: Has Morrison written anything that wasn't about superheroes? Honestly?
Third thing, is that Morrison seems to immensely enjoy what he's doing and put a whole lot of intent and/or impetus into every comic... so I don't see how even "servicing the trademark" counts as a detriment, in his respect.
Some people love other books, other stories and characters, that they did not, themselves, create. They like to tell their version of these. What's the problem? Should Erik Larsen fuck off to 'Savage Dragon' and never touch a Marvel Comics property again? Should Byrne do nothing but "Next Men' for the rest of his life? And no snarky remarks about the fellow you, personally, don't care for. ^_< I know I walked into that one.
My point is, unless someone's unhappy, I don't see how they're ever, ever wasting their time. It's only when someone is displeased that I see any reason for them to change gears. Looking over Morrison's terms "servicing the trademark" for this company or that, I was happy reading them, he seemed happy or enthused to write them. Where's the problem?
The thread summary, however, is strictly of the mode that says superheroes might be a waste of his energy. That superheroes, might be a waste. It's just a thing, right; 'superheroes'? Not a genre or a medium, per se, but a conceit, an outlook or trope, which is extremely elastic and bendy in what it can be made to do and what stories it can be made to fit or explode. Are chickens a waste of Morrison's time? Are headphones, lava lamps, and Jesus a waste of his energy? Is Morrison a waste of superheroes' energy?
Was somebody entertained? Creator or audience? Alright, then.
 
 
CameronStewart
20:27 / 16.11.05
>>>>Has Morrison written anything that wasn't about superheroes? Honestly?<<<

Is "St Swithin's Day" about superheroes? Is "The Mystery Play" about superheroes? Is "A Glass Of Water," the short story he did with Dave McKean in Piranha Press' "Phobias" anthology, about superheroes? Is "We3" about superheroes? Is "The House of Heart's Desire" about superheroes? Is "JLA: Earth 2" about --

Wait, that last one is. Sorry.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
20:53 / 16.11.05
hey, what now? Morrison/McKean short story? Totally missed that one. I have a slight McKean problem, too.
 
 
This Sunday
20:53 / 16.11.05
'We3' - Superpowered individuals with distinctive uniforms, gather together to fight evil attacking individuals. Escape through use of their excellent powerfulness, and teach as a meta-superhero lesson by learning they can take off their costumes.

'Mystery Play' - Detective In-Patient Jesus walks off the cross and nobody notices. Again, shucking his costume. He has mad super powers. Depending on how you read that, everybody in that story was either (a) dressing in costumes, (b) engaging in will fulfillment, or/and (c) having the mad super powers and using them for justice. Or evil. Because superhero stuff usually needs a supervillain.

'Kill Your Boyfriend' - Dude had the power to turn women sexy-kill-crazy. Our PoV had the power to be sexy-kill-crazy.

If somebody says "Do 'Seaguy' and that Phil Bond Gods-in-Tights book!" I shall become ill.

Even that thing with the room that made everybody excessively horny or the one about the flesh-etchy tactile encyclopedia (those are Morrison's, right?) have the superpower wish fulfillment thing, the fetishy and identifiable clothing/kit/costume thing, and the do good/evil and-fight-stuff thing. So: Superhero stories.

Except, when he does ones not owned by Marvel or DC, he cannot label them 'superhero' because the term's trademarked, innit?

Of course, I also think Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius is a superhero, and so, too, 'Wuthering Heights' is a superhero story. Or, villain, if you must, but I'll stick with hero.
 
 
Bed Head
21:05 / 16.11.05
Is "A Glass Of Water," the short story he did with Dave McKean in Piranha Press' "Phobias" anthology, about superheroes? ...Is "The House of Heart's Desire" about superheroes?

Dude, be fair. *That’s* about 10 pages worth of work, out of his whole career. Also, St Swithin’s Day is slender + written even before his breakthru Doom Patrol gig, and The Mystery Play is about the worst thing he’s ever done. And anyway, We3 is actually pretty super-powered - they may be wearing armour rather than capes, but they’re no less super-powered than Krypto the superdog and Streaky the supercat.

I think it’s a fair question from DD - what’s so wrong with superheroes? It’s a bit much to say that writing them might be a waste of someone’s time without actually saying why. And JLA and NXM in particular have been cited as ”POSSIBLE energy wasting” works, but Morrison’s work on those two comics clearly didn’t *prevent* him from doing other comics that have been acknowledged by the threadstarter as “excellent”. Justice League came out at the same time as Kill Yr Boyfriend and the Invisibles; FF1234, Marvel Boy, and the Filth were all coming out at around the same time as his run on X-Men. And I'm pretty sure that Morrison has made comments suggesting that this, er, more "excellent" stuff wouldn't ever have been written if the gazillion-selling mainstream stuff wasn't also being written at the same time.

(Also: damn, this thread so needs a sleazy potshot about his energy levels of late)
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:28 / 16.11.05
Given that his best work of the past several years has been on New X-Men and All Star Superman with Frank Quitely, I should say not. The best thing he ever did was Doom Patrol, which was definitely based in superheroics.

That said, Kill Your Boyfriend is one of my favorite comics ever, and I would be thrilled if he did something more like that someday. I was hoping Viminarama would be like that, but alas, it was not.
 
 
CameronStewart
22:21 / 16.11.05
I think that the reasoning provided above for why the examples I cited are superhero stories is reeeally reaching, and broadening the genre definition to the point of absurdity. You've maybe got the strongest argument with We3, but I still disagree that it's a superhero story.

I also made no claim that the examples were Grant's *best* work - quality is irrelevant to my point, I was just pointing out that there are plenty of works in his bibliography that aren't superhero tales.

Seaguy, however, isn't one of them.
 
 
This Sunday
22:35 / 16.11.05
Yes, I took things to an absurd level above, but absurdity's just blatant enough to be clear. At least, that's what I was shooting for.
My idea of the superhero is essentially lain out far better than I can express it, in Milligan's 'Enigma'. So, people should probably go read that, instead of this. It had lizards and cannibalism in it, too; this does not.

I'm thinking of... somebody had a pattern set up of myth/epic, romance, and novel, where myth/epic equals an exceptionally godlike individual in exceptionally godlike circumstances, romance is a slightly lower-scale but still exceptional individual in slightly more real-world circumstances, and the novel is simply the individual in the real world. Now, I don't entirely hold with that, but given those modes, two out of three are superhuman - above normal and something that is either beyond us or to be aspired to - and that version of 'the novel' is can be upgraded or advanced to the other two modes, by pulling the character(s) up in development; taking the audience (and their self-awareness/definition) with.

I was miserably moody the first time I read 'St. Swithin's Day' and the last bits there really did have that superheroic wish fulfillment strongman vibe. Superhero in the Batman sense, if not the Superman way.
'Kill Your Boyfriend' was definitely Superman territory, though. It was glam superheroics with a dirty, witty teenage tinge.

All I require for something to be a superhero thing is (a) distinctive costume, (b) superhuman or exceptional powers and abilities, and (c) some sort of justice/vindication/wish-fulfillment commentary/happenings. That's a superhero story stripped down to the necessaries. Everything else is window dressings of add-on tropes. Somebody should also probably hit somebody else to solve a complicated moral issue, but that's not a requirement so much as a commonly used tactic.

Y'all are entirely welcome to disagree with me, but I will ask - out of serious curiosity - what your definition of 'the superhero' as individual or story or mode, is. That might need a thread of its own, but well, it's already sort of developing here.
 
 
diz
22:38 / 16.11.05
If you're someone of Grant's stature, and can be as prolific, it can be very well paid indeed

I don't mean to push you into uncomfortably personal areas of conversation, but could you be more specific? I'm curious as to how you would define "very well paid indeed."

I'd also be curious where the bottom end of the scale is with regard to mainstream superhero books at the Big Two. I can never really get a good grasp on whether someone who has a regular steady gig writing a few C-list books or drawing one of the same books should be presumed to be making a comfortable living or if they're eating boiled shoeleather and struggling to make ends meet.
 
 
boychild
23:57 / 16.11.05
Sarky Bedhead person-

"I think it’s a fair question from DD - what’s so wrong with superheroes? It’s a bit much to say that writing them might be a waste of someone’s time without actually saying why. "

I did start the whole topic on the point of PERHAPS its a waste of time, not that it definitely IS - I never suggested that, or I would have stated WHY. I have been unclear about the issue myself, I could see points either way for the issue in my own mind, so wanted opinions from others - I threw it open for debate.

"And JLA and NXM in particular have been cited as ”POSSIBLE energy wasting” works, but Morrison’s work on those two comics clearly didn’t *prevent* him from doing other comics that have been acknowledged by the threadstarter as “excellent”. "

The word Excellent is used as a quick summary of my own evaluation of those books - why put it in quotation marks that imply something suspect about the word? Its my opinion is all.

" And I'm pretty sure that Morrison has made comments suggesting that this, er, more "excellent" stuff wouldn't ever have been written if the gazillion-selling mainstream stuff wasn't also being written at the same time. "

- this is a good point and one I agree with (apart from the sarky quotation marks again!)

So,it seems that a summary of the general debate is:

1. Superhero comics are as valid as any other form, so why not?
2. Grant seems to enjoy them, so more power to him.
3. He manages to promote his more more alt/ personal/ indie/ whatever word books by doing the more mainstream, so its a clever move.

Ok then... Excellent!
 
 
CameronStewart
00:21 / 17.11.05
>>>I don't mean to push you into uncomfortably personal areas of conversation, but could you be more specific? I'm curious as to how you would define "very well paid indeed."<<<

Well, I'm not about to speculate on the exact number that graces Grant's bank statement, but I would guess that he's one of the highest paid writers (per page) in the business. He also has quite a large number of high-selling books that remain in print - I received a royalty cheque for Guardian #1 the other day that paid my rent for the next two months. And that's for one book. Grant likely gets royalties for dozens and dozens of them.

I'm not going to go into more detail, because this sort of thing DOES make me uncomfortable to discuss, never mind not really being anyone's (including me) business.

He doesn't have to work in a restaurant on weekends, ok?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
01:06 / 17.11.05
IIRC, nobody has mentioned Flex Mentallo yet, so I'll mention Flex Mentallo:

Flex Mentallo

I'll go out on two limbs and say that 1) this is, in some ways, Grant's best comic and 2) it's also his most personal. Now I'll state the obvious: it's about superheroes. So we've got work that's really good, really personal and about superheroes. Given this, it'd be waste of energy for GM not to do more superhero stuff. Besides, outside of the sci-fi-fantasy umbrella that superhero stories are a part of, what else is there for GM to do in the funnybook medium? Glaswegian Splendor? Love and silver rave blobs from the 5th dimension? Action Philosophers: Terrance McKenna edition?
 
 
Krug
06:14 / 17.11.05
Interestingly I've been thinking about this mainly because this has been a year where I haven't really enjoyed any Grant Morrison (Doom Patrol collection doesnt count) comics.

I think his best work is Invisibles, Kill Your Boyfriend, We3, Seaguy, Animal Man, Doom Patrol and the finest of them all being St. Swithin's Day. I'm a huge fan but I dont really care for his JLA, Seven Soldiers and his New X-men burned me out after Quitely left and its hard to look back fondly on it sometimes. I still think his Animal Man is the one of the finest superhero comics ever published if not the finest. At the same time I think it all comes to being early experimental emotional work versus later shiny superhero mainstream material which doesn't do anything for me. I'm going to pick up his Superman tomorrow but I have to say that even after a year's wait and excitement I do feel that I'd rather just read Vertigo Grant Morrison than DC Grant Morrison if given a choice. The same goes for Peter Milligan I think. He seems to suck pretty badly at shiny superheroes unless they're compeletely mental like X-force or very removed from the traditional tights books ala Enigma. I think there is a poignancy in Grant's work that never seems to end up when he's doing JLA or X-men which is fine just that I dont seem to connect to superheroes on the same level anymore. I like the "Best Man Fall"/St. Swithin's Day/etc Grant Morrison not the Rock of Ages/Marvel Boy Grant Morrison and I understand I'm in the minority.

Or better explained the superhero writer that writes seaguy/we3/doom patrol/animal man as opposed to the superhero writer who wrote nxm/jla/seven soldiers.

I think the distinction should be made between unconventional superhero material that's removed from the traditional cape and tights comics and enthusiastic energetic superhero comics with lots of kirbylove.

But Grant loves his superheroes and if it weren't for them I very much he'd be doing comics and loving his job.

/I was miserably moody the first time I read 'St. Swithin's Day' and the last bits there really did have that superheroic wish fulfillment strongman vibe. Superhero in the Batman sense, if not the Superman way./

Sometimes I think you're Grant Morrison fucking with us when I see your posts. I don't mean to offend you but I really think you're pushing it to ludicrous levels with that comparison which I doubt many considered who liked Swithin's. I also dont think I need to tell you that wish fulfillment for fictionsuits has existed before superheroes.

Or more politely I think we just live in wildly different emic realities.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:40 / 17.11.05

/I was miserably moody the first time I read 'St. Swithin's Day' and the last bits there really did have that superheroic wish fulfillment strongman vibe. Superhero in the Batman sense, if not the Superman way./

Sometimes I think you're Grant Morrison fucking with us when I see your posts. I don't mean to offend you but I really think you're pushing it to ludicrous levels with that comparison which I doubt many considered who liked Swithin's. I also dont think I need to tell you that wish fulfillment for fictionsuits has existed before superheroes

I don't entirely agree -- while it would be silly to call St Swithin's Day a superhero comic, the idea that it contains aspects of the Batman (more Rorschach?) mythos is pretty interesting.

If the Neurotic Boy Outsider had succeeded, this could quite easily have been an origin story for a British superhero. Bruce Wayne, in Miller's telling at least (and Batman Begins) was a disillusioned loner, wandering in search of himself, writing a journal along the way, and then deliberately picking fights while wearing dark civilian clothes. Rorschach is very similar in that respect, with the added factors of his Bickle-like contempt for popular culture and the corny, corrupt saps surrounding him, and the fact that he does it all with his bare hands rather than an inherited mansion and millions. The Neurotic Boy Outsider is perhaps a kind of Holden Caulfield crossed with Walter Kovacs. (Interestingly, Morrison's version of Hitler is very, very similar... right down to an identical cafe scene where the alienated protagonist thinks he's having a conversation but is really at an empty table.)

So, yes, I think Neurotic Boy Outsider (and New Hitler) are following that kind of vigilante path of which Batman is one version. Hitler gets treated like shit, literally, and sails back to Austria with a grim promise to return one day. Boy Outsider becomes a feeble mock-assassin.

I know that when I was a student, I got in moods where I wandered around crummy coffee shops at dusk and felt like Boy Outsider -- and I also used to indulge in semi-serious fantasies about how if I practiced running a lot and did some more weights, and maybe bought some knives from that Army Surplus, and tried climbing up onto the roof of my house and waiting there all night, maybe wearing some sort of home-made mask, I could fashion myself into a sort of Batman or Rorschach.

We all did it, right?

---------

NEXT: WHY DIDN'T JAMES JOYCE LEAVE THAT "IRISH" STUFF ALONE AND BROADEN HIS SCOPE?
 
 
Krug
07:55 / 17.11.05
/WHY DIDN'T JAMES JOYCE LEAVE THAT "IRISH" STUFF ALONE AND BROADEN HIS SCOPE?/

HahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaha....
 
 
Bed Head
09:20 / 17.11.05
boychild: I did start the whole topic on the point of PERHAPS its a waste of time, not that it definitely IS - I never suggested that, or I would have stated WHY. I have been unclear about the issue myself, I could see points either way for the issue in my own mind, so wanted opinions from others - I threw it open for debate.

And I thought I had acknowledged your ambiguity when I wrote It’s a bit much to say that writing them ***might be*** a waste of someone’s time without actually saying why. The more important part being the why: I was really trying to get at why you might think that, man. You did ask the question.

The word Excellent is used as a quick summary of my own evaluation of those books - why put it in quotation marks that imply something suspect about the word? Its my opinion is all.

No sarky intent in using quote marks for your “excellent”, just trying to indicate that it’s not my word, and that you’ve now kinda made the distinction between those named works and JLA/NXM. Is all. Sincere apologies for having given any false, sarky-type impression.

**

Actually, those points made by Decresecnt and kovacs about St Swithins Day-as-potential-origin-story and Kill Your Boyfriend-as-wish-fulfilment could connect up with Sleaze’s earlier post about super-ness of the Invisibles:

...Morrison sees it all as part of the same continum -

Superpowers>taking charge of your own narrative>magic

..with St Swithin’s about a guy trying to take control of his own narrative, then failing and and getting his brains bashed out, and KYB about a girl trying the same sort of thing and succeeding.

Although, iirc, the boy in StSwithin’s chickens out of killing someone right before he fails at this narrative-grabbing manoeuver, whereas the Girl in KYB is kinda set free as soon as she kills someone. Or helps someone kill someone. But Grant's message to us is, I think, perfectly clear. There’ll be a Mark Chapman/John Hinckley-type incident someday, some devoted Morrison fan trying to release their inner-supercontext by braining the first MP they meet.
 
  
Add Your Reply