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 >

A (hell of a lotta) questions about "The Invisibles" that are nagging on me...

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:48 / 23.09.02
Dallyladyrunce God, I miss the days when you could actually discuss the book without any of the more interesting points being swept under the carpet with a dismissive "it was a mess...it was fucked up...."

Sorry to carp on about this, but the fact that Cameron has had to do new art for the trade, does that not suggest that there was some fucking being upped? I had no clue what was going on between Satan and Jack until I read the script. Now arguably, if the art had been different I may still not have got it, but it wasn't even close!

(On the other hand, the guy's artwork for Automatic Kafka is brilliant)
 
 
gergsnickle
17:35 / 23.09.02
Well, I feel like I'm just now understanding the conclusion detailed in vol 3, #2 (but then I've felt like that for two years now) even without scripts or revised artwork. I think it's all in there; it just forces you to immerse yourself in the rest of the volume (as someone else just pointed out). Having said that, I'm eagerly looking forward to the revised art.

SPEAKING of scripts, I remember reading on The Bomb/The Nexus that the shadowy figure in the alley in vol.3, #2, page 17 is supposed to be King Mob (according to the script). Am I the only person out there that still thinks this is Jolly Roger? Script be damned, the comic shows a close-up of Roger lying dead in the church, her body in a human landfill and then this shadowy figure (with cropped hair if you look closely) staggering away. Add to this the strips of paper reading TOMORROW & LIFE laying on her corpse on page 6 and Dane's comment that nobody died (on page 18) and I think you have a pretty convincing case that Jolly Roger is still out there. I mention this only because it bothers me every time I re-read that issue. The map is not the territory; the script is not the comic.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:24 / 24.09.02
Well, if you can't trust the script (and remember, issue 2, there's dodgy artwork in there!) who do you trust?
 
 
DaveBCooper
14:28 / 24.09.02
Dunno about the general application of ‘the script is not the comic’, but that was CERTAINLY the case with Invisibles 3.2, where some artists appeared to feel they knew better than the chap who’d created and steered the comic for a number of years…

DBC
 
 
--
15:14 / 24.09.02
Actually, looking back now there were a lot of things I loved about "The Invisible Kingdom": The whole ritual thing at Westminster Abbey, the chaos, the manifestation of the archons, the death of the queen of England... some really good stuff there.

I was a little sad that Jolly Roger died. I know it fits into the whole "live by the bullet, die by the bullet" thing, but she was my favorite female character in the series (not counting Lord Fanny, who was my favorite character period). Roger had some of the best lines, and I thought she was one of the coolest. Reminds me a lot of some of my lesbian friends (well, except for the eyepatch and the killing people part).

I wish The King-in-Chains would have appeared at Westminster Abbey too. He was one of the coolest-looking Archons, I thought. Too bad he only appeared in issue 1.:\

I would have liked to see Miles redeem himself too at the end, which would have been corny, but... Remember how Robin in the first Arcadia mentions there are some Invisible agents who are so paranoid they've forgotten they're Invisible? That's how I saw Miles. Both he and King Mob searched for the Invisibles at a young age (and both seemed to end up according to their upbringing... Miles, brought up rich, joined the Establishment (order) while Mob, whose mother was a political radical, joined the Invisibles (anarchy) ). H'mm... I'm still not sure what Helga means when she mentions that Miles is guilty for his part in the death oif two women... Maybe the second woman is the fox he saw killed when he was a child (though the other men referred to the fox as a "he"). I'm stumped.

My problem with volume 3 is mainly the huge time gap between 3.2 and 3.1. What happened to characters like Helga, John A'Dreams and Mr. 6 between the years 1999-2012? No clue at all is given to us...

Still not sure what that weird fish/man statue is either.
 
 
gergsnickle
16:20 / 24.09.02
Just to belabor the point slightly: what about all of us readers out there who don't have access to the scripts? Ultimately all we can go on is what actually makes it into the comic (even if it is as confusing as that worm/brain thing in 3.2)...Somebody else out there must think Jolly Roger made it out alive though (anyone else remember that photo someone submitted ages ago with a J.R. look-alike on a motorcycle [I think anyway]?).
 
 
The Falcon
14:32 / 25.09.02
The Audrey Murray thing's easy though. Mind you, I read the whole thing in bizarre order: v.2 #21-v.3 #1 (I think picking up v.2 #17-20 along the way and reading 'Bloody Hell..' and 'Say You Want...' and buying 'Counting to None' somewhere around the tail-end of v.3), and then picking up 'Apocalipstick' and 'Entropy..' a.s.a.p., after they came out. And I've still never read v.2 #14-17.

I was completely fucking lost when I started, yet compelled to carry on. And then I started buying JLA, which was double-cool. Yeah, so...

'Moves in time around it' and blah-de-blah.
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
17:15 / 25.09.02
The Audrey Murray thing is easy because:

A) She's referred to as "Audrey Murray" in 1.12, and
B) She's referred to as "Audrey Murray" in 3.2.

Although it is, admittedly, easier to spot if you read it all in one go.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
18:11 / 25.09.02
Just a note and again, I do not want to deter from anyone's having a happy time with their understanding of Invisibles and it might be that very comic that draws us here, but...

Answering a question with 'it's a hypertext,' 'he's a fiction suit,' 'read it again (replace with "more closely" where needed)' or other complex word grouping turned me away from the board entirely back in the day. The only reason I'm saying this is that a new reader came here and asked who John A Dreams was and while 'fiction suit' may make sense to a 'close reader,' it is 9/10 not the answer they wanted.

Help a brother out, don't shut him out or say he hasn't read the book.

Now I do know the whole 'fiction suit/hypertext' thing was very hilariously covered in Planetary (which apparently did not amuse Grant), but... I really think that it would help to define the terms that are not readily apparent when answering a question.

Just a suggestion, folks.

Oh, and not to brag but where else can I tell someone this with any hope of the other person caring? I recently got GM signed copies of Invisibles #1, New X-Men E is for Extinction Part One (with Quitely's sign as well) and Doom Patrol Crawling from the Wreckage Part One (with Case and a nice certificate drawing of the DP clan). So I'm very happy.

Ta.
 
 
I, Libertine
19:52 / 25.09.02

Which ish of Planetary was that?
 
 
sleazenation
22:01 / 25.09.02
i'm guessing issue 9 which i believe was dedicated to Mr morrison and delt with the intersection with fictional reality and such things
 
 
The Falcon
22:41 / 25.09.02
Mister Six, why do you think Grant wasn't amused about Planetary #9. Him and Warren are chums, ain't they? And one chum dedicates an issue of his comic (in itself a meta-critique of superhero comics/origins, etc.) to another - thereby paying tribute. I thought it was quite nice of Mr. Ellis to do that.

Other than that, you're right - I see a fair amount of oneupmanship, and patronising posts here (that a couple were directed at me is... entirely the point,) along with a backslapping 'we were here first' mentality among 'senior' members of the board. This is tremendously irritating and unwelcoming - and additionally, it makes those guilty look like 'I know something you don't know' wanks. In fairness, it's something I have done since coming here, but only because gaining an actual dialogue seems fairly often to be akin to headering walls. And, no, I'm not averse to an argument either, and have read some enormously entertaining ones here, before and after joining.

I'm here fundamentally because I'm an enormous Grant Morrison fan (with many of the ancillaries that seem to accompany this), and reading new insights into his work, hopefully offering an occasional fresh perspective of my own, and so on is what I'd like to do.

Smile's post on page one pissed me off, because of the reasons detailed above, but also because it was... unnecessary.

Lastly, if there's anyone here who read the Robert Rankin thread in books, I'm sorry I said he was shit - it was by far the most childish and worthless post I've written (...and I've written a few. Boom!) and I wish I could take it back.
 
 
The Falcon
22:46 / 25.09.02
And the fact that we're still discussing it, and debating it, means it's a 'living' text - one I find new interpretations of every time I crack open an issue/tpb:

Current one - a comedy/sci-fi/action narrative self-help book.
 
 
--
02:37 / 26.09.02
I mainly joined this place recently because I liked "The Invisibles" a lot and the topics seemed interesting (not many places on the web where I can have intellectual comments on topics like magic and Whitehouse, for example).

I consider myself fairly well-read. One reason why I was drawn to the Invisibles was because it seemed like something up my alley. I mean, as a gay man interested in crossdressing characters like Lord Fanny were a godsend for me (finding positive crossdressing characters in comics can be difficult). I liked how the series had allusions to writers I admire like William S. Burroughs and HP Lovecraft. Hell, The Invisibles introduced me to chaos magic and got me involved in magic and general (it also inspired me to read good books like "Valis" and "The Meme Machine" and Phil Hine's stuff). As I said, most of the magic stuff in the comic I get because I've read a lot on that topic.

It's just a lot of the time/fiction suit/hypertext stuff that throws me off a bit. Maybe because I've never read Terrence McKenna or something (no bookstores in my area sell any of his books). I'll have to look into him (and Wilson while I'm at it).

BTW, I've been to the Bomb and I've read all of their issue analysis, but even those didn't answer all my questions. Maybe the imprived version of Vol. 3 will clear things up.

Either that or I'm completely clueless about 4-D shit.
 
 
The Natural Way
11:05 / 26.09.02
But you know what, Six, I figured out what all that stuff ("fiction suit", "memplex" etc) meant on my own.... It just took a bit of thought (sometimes not even that much). If that sort of thing alienates the casual reader, then, hey, the Invisibles isn't FOR the casual reader. Loads of books aren't, but now we start grumbling because it's a comic?

Oh, yeah, Lada, forgot about the art for 2: now that WAS fucked up.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
12:58 / 26.09.02
On the Planetary thing:

Issue 9 sounds right.

I'm trying to track it down, but the story I heard was that Ellis showed a proof to Grant at a con and GM was 'less than amused.'

I know they're chums, but after reading an interview on GM's hurt feelings on the Matrix, and bearing the references to the Matrix in mind... he might have not been in a 'good place' to see such ribbing, but again, I don't know. It just makes sense to me. I hear he's a really really nice guy and would love to meet him. Once I composed a rather graphic piece in a contest to see who could win a 'night of debauchery' with GM... and I'm straight.

There's a fiction suit of a different color!
 
 
PatrickMM
00:48 / 11.02.03
I know it's been a while since this thread was going, but I've got a couple points on what's been said.

1. On Robin naming the baby Quimper: Throughout the text, Robin is presented as the mother of the supercontext, a world where everyone gets what they want, the best world they can imagine. Before he is corrupted, Quimper is the manifestation of all that is good, including the imagination of a child. During the text, the world is corrupted by the archons, in the same manner that Quimper is. Eventually Quimper is saved, and reborn, in the same way that the universe will be in 2012. As a result, the universe that Robin births through her actions in the book is a world that has everything that Quimper represents.

2. Despite the Cameron Stewart pages, which are awesome, much of 3.2 is still horrible. I know it's probably not going to happen, but I'd love so much to see Jiminez or Weston clean up some of the bad pages, like the remaining Ashley Wood pages, the Ridgway Harlequinade pages, and the page where Jack "eats" the king Archon. And just a question, how did Grant let those pages get out? Couldn't he have told the artists to change them, to better reflect the script? The whole of the IK looks very hurried, like it was being thrown together right as it was getting published.

3. I can see both sides of the argument on Volume III. Despite all the incredible ideas, it does abandon most of the series' best characters. If anything, the Volume should have been much longer, to allow time for closure for nearly all the characters. 3.1 was the only issue of III that felt satisfying on the first read. That said, the depth of Volume III is simply astounding, and I think I'll never be able to truly understand all of it.

4. You don't have to read this board to recognize Audrey Murray. I recognized the name the first time reading it, and then did a quick verification in Apocalipstick. And that touch was incredible, because it tied every single issue of the series together, nothing was superfluous. That was one of my favorite things about reading the series, seeing how seemingly unrelated issues of Volume I figured into the overall plot.

Why'd Mason do so little in Volume 3? Volume 2 made him seem like an important character pulling the strings on both sides, but in Vol. 3 he barely even appears.

Something I'd like to know also, Mason was one of my favorite characters in Volume II, and his absence in Volume III, along with Robin's, hurt the story.
 
 
--
03:20 / 11.02.03
yeah, Mason was one of my favorite characters, there was just something about that guy. I can't put my finger on it.

Lord Fanny was pretty much wasted too, much to my dismay. It was nice to see Miles and Six do a lot though.

I'm thinking of doing my own Harlequinade as everyone panel and putting it in 3.2 myself. I think I'll put my face in the panel too. What could be more Invisible then re-doing some of the art yourself and literally putting yourself, the reader, in the text?
 
 
Baz Auckland
11:13 / 11.02.03
I always thought it was weird the way they led Mason along, telling him that "by 2012 he'll run the military-industrial complex", and then having him die that year.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:54 / 11.02.03
I think that's supposed to be a little ironic fuck you from fate. Remember at the end of series 2 KM is trying to wake Mason up by threatening him and Mason cooly replies that he knows he's going to live in the future? Jokes on him.

Just interested if Patrick could give evidence for Robin being 'presented as the mother of the supercontext' throughout the series.

And arguably, it wasn't Morrison's responsibility to make sure the art for the last series wasn't fucked up, but the editor.
 
 
PatrickMM
18:45 / 11.02.03
Just interested if Patrick could give evidence for Robin being 'presented as the mother of the supercontext' throughout the series.

Maybe mother of the supercontext wasn't the perfect wording, but throughout the series, Robin is connected with both Barbelith and birth. Put the two together, and you've got Robin creating the supercontext.

The red dots on her face tie her visually to Barbelith, and of the main team, she is the only indisputably female character (As Fanny isn't biologically female, and Boy isn't mentally "female"). In Volume III, KM says that when Robin left, she was pregnant. When she returns, a birth occurs, the birth of a new age. By being the person to travel through time, Robin "fertilizes" the minds of KM, etc., giving them the knowledge they need to bring about the new age.

Robin's experiences in the tank feature placental imagery, as she manipulates the world, in order to bring the characters to the point where they will provide the catalyst for the birth of the supercontext. When Robin goes to Barbelith, she herself is reborn, and comes back as a new person, an enlightened person.

So, Robin isn't really the mother of the supercontext, but she is the character in the book most associated with bringing about the supercontext. In this way, it would make sense that she would name the new age.

And arguably, it wasn't Morrison's responsibility to make sure the art for the last series wasn't fucked up, but the editor.

That's true, but I would think that Morrison would have a bit more personal involvement in the direction of the art, considering it is his story. Even if he is mostly writing for his own pleasure, the experience that the reader has has to be important to him, and the horrible art would hurt that. I'm not sure if he gets a chance to proof all the art before it goes in the book, but if he did, he shouldn't have let the stuff that went in the book go in. But, you're right that the editor should have been looking at what goes in the book too.
 
 
dlotemp
22:34 / 11.02.03
Replies to a few different points -

To Sypha - BRILLIANT IDEA about re-doing the Harlequinade-as-everyone page! Wish I'd thought of it. I urge you to begin work on it immediately and let us know how it comes out. GREAT IDEA!

I don't fully agree with PatrickMM's theory but it is pretty interesting. I can just hear the Fifth Dimension singing..."This is the dawning of the Age of Quimper....Age of Quimper...of Kwimmmmppppeerrr!"
Nice ideas, PatrickMM. I think Robin is more the mid-wife than the mother, but, as you say, perhaps the term mother was not exact.
 
 
--
02:55 / 12.02.03
thank you dlotemp. I actually did try to do this awhile ago but the results were so awful I scrapped it, I must try to make a new one soon, even though I'm not a very good artist, despite the fact I was in my school's advanced art program.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:32 / 12.02.03
Sorry Patrick, me again, Boy 'not mentally female'?
 
 
--
17:27 / 12.02.03
I was kind of wondering about that statement myself. How do you define "mentally female"?
 
 
PatrickMM
18:30 / 12.02.03
Sorry Patrick, me again, Boy 'not mentally female'?

The way she's portrayed in the book, Boy is presented as more of the stereotypical male presence on the team. She doesn't believe as much in the magic aspects of the Invisibles, she's more happy when confronting people hand to hand. Also, her code name is Boy, and with her short hair, she is visually associated with what is generally perceived as what a male is.

It's not so much that she is "mentally" female, as it is that she is so loaded with "male" characteristics, and a male name, that she does not provide any sort of a strong female presence on the team.

But, I think that's a lot of what The Invisibles is about, breaking down the barriers that are in place, and not doing what society tells you to do, but doing what you want to do. Like, Fanny crossdressing, Jack going against his prejudiced background and accepting Fanny, or Boy playing the role that would be assigned to a male in most books.

And, thanks for asking questions about my stuff. I still love talking about the series, and the more you question what I'm saying, the better I can understand my own points, and Grant's points.
 
 
diz
13:45 / 13.02.03
And KM being saved by Audrey (how how how were we supposed to know that if we were not members of this message board??) was very lousy.

ummm...i wasn't on the message board and i thought the Audrey thing was obvious.

and beautiful, i might add. KM's whole story arc in v3 revolves around him dealing with his uncomfortable karma, when Audrey materializes and becomes quite literally the walking incarnation of his karma, showing a compassionate, loving face to the universe, clearing him of his baggage to prepare him for the final reunion with Robin and the supercontext. fantastic. just utterly fantastic.
 
 
--
02:47 / 14.02.03
ironically I got the Audrey bit quite easily, mostly because I remembered her from volume 1 (remember I read almost all the volumes at around the same time, so it was fresh in my head).
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:24 / 14.05.04
What is the relevence of Mason having flu to his alien encounter, as related in 'BS 2'? I know it's there to make us continue to mistrust Mason, and to hark back to the similar sequence in 'BS 1' but I'm still unclear as to what it's meant to mean in and of itself? Is it that Mason has realised the conflict is a game because he's aware that things like good/bad all depend on untrustworthy perceptions?
 
 
Triplets
14:49 / 14.05.04
What does Quimper mean when he says "once I was little light"? You know, apart from it being really really creepy?
 
 
stinkbot
20:21 / 14.05.04
Umm dont be mad if im totaly wrong because i probably am. I lost Book 7 a while ago so i cant directly reference it but I got something out of it that id like to hear opinions on. At the beginning of the novel it shows a character that looks like gideon before he shaves his head. The character is being aproached by a member of an organization to help create propaganda. In the end of the book it shows gideon again now king mob in 2012 and it refers to the invisibles as a cult. The cult is creating video games im guessing that can place people in the invisibles. It is my thought that it was a cult the whole time funded by Mason and using gideons creative talents to make up "invisible" stories so people will be convinced to join them. The whole series propaganda except for some short passages The issue featureing KM at the end of book 5 is his dream of how this cult will change the world and make him famouse. Or is the cult using the satalites to place the alien abductions and other abnormal experiences in peoples head to change their perception. sorry thought i knew what i was saying before i wrote this, feel free to elaborate or just tell me how im stupid. But what is the significance of the story of gideon pre-King Mob.
 
 
--
21:27 / 14.05.04
Hey, a ressurrection of my first Barbelith post! Neat-O...
 
 
PatrickMM
21:48 / 14.05.04
That Quimper quote refers to the fact that he used to be one of the benevolent "aliens" of the invisible college (before which he was John a Dreams, but that's beside the point for this). Quimper used to be a symbol of all that was good, Jack says that he was there when he played with his toys as a kid, he's emblematic of childhood innocence. Then, he is raped at the same party that Fanny is raped at. He becomes Quimper, a warped, evil version of what he once was, "a little light."

In Anarchy for the Masses, Grant says that Quimper is an abortion that he and his girlfriend once had. It's an amazingly accurate description. Quimper once had all the characteristics of a baby, and abortion destroyed that innocence, and turned it into the warped visage of Quimper.

Robin is frequently referred to as a mother in the series, and Quimper attacking her mind is essentially the guilt of the abortion attacking the mother's mind. Fanny saving Quimper is oddly appropriate, she plays the role of the mother, but rather than attempting to fight him through force as Robin had done, she fights him with love, dissolving the barrier of hate, and returning him to the innocent state that he once occupied.
 
 
Triplets
22:31 / 14.05.04
Ah, thanks! This ties something else up for me. If you take a look at Quimper's office (when Mr. Six is investigating the shoggoth-porn thing) you see one of the animal masks the rapists wore. Obviously Quimper got his revenge at some point.
 
 
The Natural Way
01:30 / 15.05.04
Quimper's a bloody magic matter "grey". He's the universe in microcosm hung up to dry on the cross of matter. Eventually he's liberated. The fallen "child" (Edith's abortion) is rescued and the "deep trauma sites" are brought to light - blah. And, hey, the child is full of stars.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply