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 >

So... what exactly is a "fiction suit?"

  
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
 
--
15:23 / 19.11.02
H'mmm. But if we as a reader put on the fiction suit when we read "The Invisibles", then isn't what we percieve to be true actually true? If the reader places him/herself into the comic and... Bah! I give up! Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
 
 
--
15:26 / 19.11.02
I prefer to just think of THE INVISIBLES as being read as a variety of different viewpoints.... as Lawrence said it could be read as a magical story, a gnostic story, a linear story, an action story, a 4D/Horus/Cross-section-of-birth5D/fractal/spacetime/braintree whatever story, etc. I doubt one interpretation is truer or purer then another, despite whatever intention's the author had.
 
 
--
15:34 / 19.11.02
Furthermore, you have to factor in linear terms when you consider THE INVISIBLES. As a series it starts in 1994 and ends in 2012 (though it does go backwards and fowards at certain points). And it was released in a linear manner, even though the last 12 issues went backwards. When Morrison wrote the scripts he probably started at page one and continued onward in that manner as he wrote them. Edith (as a character)ages and dies, etc. To say that linearity has nothing to do with the series is pointless because linearity was a key factor in the creation of the thing itself (Morrison had an idea, he developed it, he wrote it, it was released as a comic, people purchased it, etc.) It's not like Morrison wrote the thing first then got the idea, or that readers purchased the comic before it was even written.
 
 
Aertho
15:51 / 19.11.02
I'm back to remind all of us what the original post was about.

I asked "what is a fiction suit?"

I understood that it, a fiction suit, is metaphorical. It's intended to be obscure, thought provoking, and beyond simple linear and mundane solid understanding.
I meant to ask, and further posts went on to say that: IF we were to provide "a fiction suit" with a concrete definition, what would that be. IF that point of knowledge WERE solidified, how would the entire story and struggle of the Invisibles be consequently crystalized in our understanding?

I know it's a biggie, but ya'll have handled it nicely. Thus far, Houdini was the first to answer the question I asked. He still left holes, but I have a somewhat solid grasp of the narrative now.
 
 
Aertho
15:57 / 19.11.02
And I'm on Sypha's side... I think. Yes, the story IS nonlinear. It has nonlinear aspects in its storytelling, and challenges the reader to consider things nonlinearly. HOWEVER, The Invisibles is a linear STORY. What is that story?

If John A Dreams transcends individuality and timespace, he may never have been Just-Jack-Flint at all. Perhaps when Jack Flint goes through trauma and pulls off all possible personas, he uncovers a piece of John A Dreams -who in his transcension, is ALL OF US.
 
 
--
16:43 / 19.11.02
The story of the Invisibles? That's been said: It's a cross-section of the birth of a 5D being. Though it could also be read as the battle between the Outer Church and Invisible College (however necessary or uneccesary that battle is depends on your opinion)to steer humanity to their idea of the future, if you want to look at it from a "linear" viewpoint.

Anyway, I know there's more to the Invisibles then just a linear story, I kinda get all the Horus/time maggot stuff, but I don't think that all the "higher" stuff is the one truth. It all depends on your perspective and where you're coming from when you read it. For example, when I first read it I was getting into chaos magic so all the magic stuff appealed to me. Later on I was getting into gnosticism so when I read it the second time I viewed it as a gnostic story. There are many ways to read it, just like how you can read famous works of literature from a feminist viewpoint, a queer theory viewpoint, you get the idea. I'm arguing that a lineal reading of THE INVISIBLES is no less valid then a non-lineal reading. Both readings have their pros and cons but neither is more true then the other. THE INVISIBLES could be read in a variety of ways in a variety of fiction suits. Maybe a feminist reading of the series would be interesting, for example.

I just get annoyed when people make these claims about fractals and stuff but never go into detail about it (or just offer a pat vague answer like "I can't explain it" or "it's untranslatable") which gives me the impression that either they're a.) too bored to explain it because they've gone over it in the past, b.) too lazy to explain or c.) don't really know what the fuck they're talking about. The same criticism could be applied to the people who make outrageous claims like "Tom O'Bedlam is Takashi" but then offer no evidence regarding why they think that. Awhile back I made the notion that I thought Mob and Miles were dooplegangers of each other but I did explain why I thought so and gave proof to the argument (not saying I was right mind you, it was just my reading).

From now on when a newbie doesn't understand something I'll just say "Your problem is that you're unable to grasp the series from a non-linear standpoint".
 
 
Perfect Tommy
17:53 / 19.11.02
And the clincher: What the HELL does GM mean when he says that Archons are BPM (beat per minute?) 3 Grof condensations.

Issue 3.8, when Edith is touring De Sade's mansion... remember that girl in the Semi, "feeding the Beast," panning for gold in the dung of the human unconscious and so forth? When we see her a little later on and she's talking about the experience, she describes (I may be misquoting, no comics at hand) Stanislavsky Grof's "Basic Perinatal Matrix III": the images of horror, filth, hell, and so forth, arising from the trauma of (a human) being born.

Issue 3.1, as above so below: The Archon. The representative of eternal fascism, deathcamp atrocity, Hell on earth, arising from the trauma of (a Supercontextual/5D/Age-of-Horus/post-larval human-cum-self-aware-universe) being born. As soon as the King-of-All-Tears is recognized for what he is--a psychological blockage--he dissolves, his quaint ferocity absorbed into the narrative.

Hm. While I was typing that out, it occurs to me that:
  • Recognition of what the Archon = "naming" him.
  • "BPM3" is a whole concept, namely "horror/filth/shame/atrocity as terrifying but ultimately illusory result of transformation". It's an emotional aggregate, it's a bubble-word to our circle-words.
  • Maybe, in some way, this is the name that Jack Frost remembers when he returns from the endless light in 1.23...
  • ...which is the same as the word KM will be asked for.
  • And finally, if Key 17 is the Conspiracy's word-drug, and Key 23 is the Invisibles' word-drug, then seeing as 64 is the number of the entire I Ching, and the originally intended number of issues of 'The Invisibles', isn't Key 64 the word-drug of the whole comic?
(I want to say that Jack Frost eating the incoming king is the same as-above-so-below deal: he recognizes the king as simply an incoming not-self boundary, and absorbs that idea with no problem. Ditto for the Supercontext in 2012, as stated above. But I don't know the precise language as well so I have little specific support for the claim right now.)

One last thing, and I apologize for being so scattered: I really don't mean to high-and-mightily claim that I reign supreme over the READINGS OF THE INVISIBLES with a jewelled zozo scepter and crystalline crown, but...
  • "Whose voice is this reminding you that freedom is free?...Do you remember?"
  • "I've just remembered this is a suit for experiencing 'The Invisibles'"
  • "This is your own voice echoing off the walls of God" (or was it the other way around?)
  • "The good people, the machine elves of hyperspace... it was us!"
...it's not like we're just making up this "read outside the comic" shit up, ey?
 
 
Aertho
20:01 / 19.11.02

* "Whose voice is this reminding you that freedom is free?...Do you remember?"
* "I've just remembered this is a suit for experiencing 'The Invisibles'"
* "This is your own voice echoing off the walls of God" (or was it the other way around?)
* "The good people, the machine elves of hyperspace... it was us!"

...it's not like we're just making up this "read outside the comic" shit up, ey?

WTF?
I was following completely... up until that. What do you mean, Tommy? I don't remember those quotes from anywhere in the series. I sure ask a lot of questions. I'm rather dense it seems.
 
 
gergsnickle
20:02 / 19.11.02
""And, Sypha, if one more person, with a quick knee-spasm, dismisses that kind of stuff (language which Morrison uses himself ALL THE FUCKING TIME IN THE INVISIBLES TO DESCRIBE WHAT'S GOING ON) without thinking about what the other poster meant by it and what it implies, then, well....I'll just give up and you guys can carry on the playing "Hey! Maybe Six is Tom is Mason is Chang!" game without anyone intruding who actually wants to think about the series above and beyond "Whatever you want to believe is true , maaaan!" Which is a fucking cop out.""

- From Remembrance's Post above.

I'd be interested to know what the problem with playing the 'Dane is John is Mason is etc.' game is, and why this is a cop out. We're working with the text here, trying to make sense of it in our own ways, and doing so on different levels. But how is this stuff a cop out if we find it there in the series? What is this level that is above and beyond what other posters have posited?

It seems to me that in a comic about everything there are going to be a lot of different and contradictory ideas that are in no way mutually exclusive. Expecting a definitive interpetation seems to miss the point - I respect your opinions; whatever you find yourself believing is true.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
20:47 / 19.11.02
I'm just now realizing that when one attempts to quote comics away from the comics themselves, one inevitably looks like an asshole--but I'll do my best to remember where these quotes show up:

1 - Barbelith's voice, I think that it's in the last issue; but then, maybe it's in "London" or "Liverpool" from v1.

2 - Jack Flint to George Harper, 3.3 or 3.2, shortly before he's killed by Orlando.

3 - El-Fayed quoting Rumi, vol 3:
I have thrown duality away like an old dishrag.
I see and know all times and worlds,
As One, One, always One.
So what do I have to do to get you to admit who is speaking?
Admit it and change everything!
This is your own voice echoing off the walls of God.

4 - King Mob, in the phone booth, to Jacqui in 3.2. This one I probably butchered.
 
 
--
02:52 / 20.11.02
No one said anything about you making the stuff up. I acknowledge that stuff exists in the book but it's not the be-all-end-all. Like Mob says in the final issue: "it's a thriller, it's a romance, it's aporno, it's neo-modernist kitchen sink science fiction that you catch, like a cold." and the next page: "It's different every time." Which pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say and proves that one definitive reading of the series is a moot point.

Thanks for finally clearing up that BPM3 thing for me too. We don't all have the free time to read Grof.
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
07:06 / 20.11.02
syph - sorry for acting like a baby.

yer posts are gallus.
 
 
The Natural Way
09:48 / 20.11.02
Gerg - my problem with the "could such and such be such and such?" stuff is that its such a boring, cliched approach to the book; that, as far as I'm concerned, simply suggests a shitload of confusion on behalf of the reader. And because it's a pointless diversion. In the overall scheme of things, it doesn't mean anything to connect Six with Satan - that is to say, I'm unsure of the value of it as an excercise. Earlier (I believe it was) Sypha got caught up in the "Is Six Tom?" game, in an attempt to figure out what was going on between Six and the Harlequinade in the underground, and I simply pointed out that that whole side of things (even if there is anything in it [which I really, really think there isn't) is the least interesting aspect of what's going on in that sequence. I then attempted to point him in a more meaty, chewy direction. I know it seems like elitism, but if you knew how many times (and I've been posting on this site since the beginning), I've seen people confuse "maybe he's HIM!" with actually engaging with the themes/story.....well, you'd understand why I've turned into such a cantankerous old fart.

I'm all for the plurality of readings - some of my earlier posts actually point in that diretion ("perspectives"; ways of perceiving the "ectoplasm" [the series] and what not) - but I'm just a little bored of an approach that I never really understood as particularly useful - in terms of unpacking what's going on w/ the book - in the first place.

As for "authorial intent", well...you can ignore it if you like, but then we're on the very muddy ground that is defining exactly what a thread that poses the question "what is a fiction suit?" is actually for. Why bother to attempt to in any way "solve" the book if "ORANGE RUNNICE!" is as meaningful an answer as any.

Is it just me, or are the most interesting posters on this thread - Hou, yawn, Tommy (and to some extent Laurence) - really engaging with authorial intent. It seems to me that they are.

Back to linear time: Well, as Laurence has already headnodded in his posts, one can't read the Invisibles as a straight up spy/adventure story without locking horns with its non linear aspect. Here's the point: IT. CAN'T. BE. DONE. There are points in the story that collapse the idea of "story" completely (incl. as I pointed out way back when) the timesuit, John, blah. You will not make head nor tail of them if you insist on a linear reading. In fact, so much of the Invisibles operates in this way...you have to fuck with the text to the point of violence in order to make any sense of it whatsoever and still keep yr precious linear narrative intact.

Mulholland Drive is two hours long and the events in front of the camera occur sequentially, but it's hardly "linear" is it? Please let's get beyond this and just accept that the book doesn't operate as a flat plane and any attempt to approach it as such will yield a less than partial appreciation of what. it's. about. The things supposed to be "holographic", for Gawd's sake....a quality that doesn't readily align itself with linearity. A text can be enjoyed without that stuff, you know. But maybe you didn't like Mulholland Drive........

I'm not sure, Sypha, where I'm invasive or unclear in my previous posts. Do you just shut down when you read Invissyjargon? The "[untranslatable concept]" thing refers to a lickle speech given by John (dressed as Flint) in Division X HQ. I use these terms as a jumping off point for the reader - they're often direct quotes lifted from the original text, which, if you can be bothered to dig them out, will really unpack the theme I'm jamming on. Shorthand for the overall point I'm trying to make. Sometimes I stupidly presuppose other 'lithers possess my insanely compendious knowledge of Invissyquotes, etc.... I know this is dumb. Sorry. I also continually sample language/quotes from the text in an attempt to really engage with. the. text. To highlight the connections - the contexts. I think it's a valuable exercise.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:36 / 20.11.02
*Stanislav* Grof, not "Stanislavsky".
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
10:42 / 20.11.02
Perfect Tommy And finally, if Key 17 is the Conspiracy's word-drug, and Key 23 is the Invisibles' word-drug, then seeing as 64 is the number of the entire I Ching, and the originally intended number of issues of 'The Invisibles', isn't Key 64 the word-drug of the whole comic?

Except that there were originally going to be 75 issues, which became less as time passed... So we come back to the question, can Key 64 be administered orally?
 
 
The Natural Way
12:10 / 20.11.02
Yeah, but there ended up being 64 issues and the number fitted and was good. And, yeah, I'm not clear on this (is anyone), but by "dosed" I think perhaps Mob means "built into the King's make up from the start". Once the Invisibles learn how to consciously manipulate the story, the King is simply devoured by the narrative of which he is a part. If you get me. Key 64 kicks off where the thought of an object actually is/becomes that object. I think. Who knows. Yeah, 64, 64, 64....the I Ching is a map of the total number of manifestations within universe/positions chi finds itself in, so yeah.....Tommy's thinking makes perfect sense. Exactly the same way I was thinking about it, anyway.

And definitely not "Stanislavsky". He invented the actor's "method".
 
 
gergsnickle
12:23 / 20.11.02
Remembrunce: okay, I'm with you - my earlier post based on a genuine confusion on why certain approaches were games or cop outs rather than something helpful...on the other post I asked about Six/Tom and indoing so it led to a whole new understanding of the harlequinade and the fiction suit (thanks to some of the commments). A game? Yeah, but that's the one I was playing this time around. I know you've been through it all before, but have patience with those of us who have not.

ANYWAY, the most intriguing thing you mentioned the two paragraphs about authorial intent - my opinion is simply that all we all have in common are the comics. Sure, interviews with the Creator are interesting and helpful, but what if the comic itself shows something other than this intent? My example is the Jolly Roger is dead in the script vs. looking alive in the comic. Look, I know this is off topic and may be another game; if so ignore it.
 
 
The Natural Way
12:53 / 20.11.02
Oh, I'm not a complete fuckhead about it - obviously there's plenty of unintended stuff in the book. But that doesn't mean that some readings are just a little bit arbitrary, redundant, absurd or, and this is the worst, just plain boring.

Fr instance, do we derive any more exciting, interesting stuff from the "Hey! Roger looks like she's alive!" reading (which, far as I'm concerned, is debatable), than we already derive from what Morrison originally intended (that Roger is, in fact, dead)? I can think of loads of stuff that tie directly into the book's overall themes/story that are underlined/reinforced by Roger actually being dead. The alternative...well, it might be a fun exercise in creative thinking, but, well....why? What does it have to offer us? I can do creative thinking w/out the Invisibles.
 
 
--
13:26 / 20.11.02
Actually, I have a fiarly good knowledge of the text itself too, even though I've only been reading it for less then a year.

And it was not me who asked is Six or Bedlam were connected with the harlequinade, I forget who that was.
 
 
The Natural Way
13:31 / 20.11.02
Oh, if you squint hard enough we all bleed into one another anyway.

Cheeky wink.
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
13:36 / 20.11.02
yeah, ya chinky wank.

politically inorrect smiley muthas
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
13:39 / 20.11.02
this has been one hell of a thread by the way.

can't believe hardly any one else joined in.
 
 
--
13:44 / 20.11.02
Further more, Remembrunce, I think it's fairly obvious that a completley linear reading of the Invisibles is impossible. But to just write-out all the linear stuff is an even bigger cop-out. Even the last issue of the Invisibles is linear in fashion: It starts at the day before the merge with the Supercontext, then proceeds onward to the actual Supercontext itself and the things that happen before it (like the return of Robin, the King of all Tears, etc.) Furthermore it is 22 pages, and, I presume, when you read it you started at page one and ended on page 22. For a non-linear reading of said issue you would have had to start at a different page and work foward or backward from there. Interestingly, the first Invisible volume I ever read was "Apocalipstick", followed by "Entrophy in the UK", then "Bloody Hell in America", then "Kissing Mr. Quimper", then "Say You Want a Revolution", then "Counting Down to None", then the final 12 issues. Needless to say this messed me up quite a bit. Had I read them in order from the start I probably would have got it faster, despite what yawn said about reading it out of order.

And it's not like I'm not getting the overall theme of the series, it's just that a lot of the stuff described here (fractals/4d/time maggots) I don't really find as interesting as some of the other stuff, no matter how key to the story it is. My favorite bits of the Invisibles was the more magical parts, like all the city magic stuff in "Down and Out in Heaven & Hell". A lot of the occult stuff I got, as for all the conceptual stuff, only a bit. I probably have more of a clear understanding of it now then I did before.

I thought the Outer Church existed since before the 20's. Then someone suggested Freddie created the Outer Church when he panicked at the Hand ceremony. At first I dismissed this saying "How could this be if the Outer Church existed beforehand? Then I thought that if you view time as a hologram bits and pieces of it could have existed beforehand (as was suggested about the Archon appearing in 2012). As Takashi describes it "a multidimensional self-perfecting system in which everything that has ever, or will ever occur, occurs simultaneously".
 
 
--
13:51 / 20.11.02
One other thing I find interesting: Someone said that the whole Invisibles "war" with the Archons was unnecessary, but I'm not so sure about that. Mainly because in the final issue on page 13 you get that text that says: "Larval consciousness experiences the introductiion of necessary inoculating agents from the supercontext as a form of invasion by hostile, bacterial forces. The inoculation is conceptualized by the developing larva as an invasion of threatening "not-self" material... The confronting and integration of "not-self" being a necessary stage in the development of the maturing larva's self-awareness..."philogeny recaptitulates history"."

I'm probably wrong, but I feel that this passage shows that the battle between the two sides was important in the Horus/time worm's development stages. If that's the case to call the battle between the two sides pointless might be too hasty. I think there definetly was a point to it. And John A'Dreams definetly confronted and integrated "not-self" to become a 4D being.
 
 
gergsnickle
14:11 / 20.11.02
Yeah, this has been one of the most helpful invisibles threads in a while.

Sypha, for what it matters, it was I who made the Six/Tom connection. Oh the shame. Tee hee.

Well, Remembrunce, this has nothing to do with being a fuckhead or not (you're all right with me) - I just don't buy into the idea that one viewpoint is more valid or important than any other. Sure the J. Roger issue is a dead end (even if she's not), but there's certainly enough direct evidence in the text to support it. Which brings to mind the authorial intent thing. Which isn't a dead issue at all. Here we have a complex work (which will keep all of us disagreeing until 2012) with the author scripting one thing, but the final collaboration producing another seemingly contradictory reading. Sure, it's just my former English major self talking here, but this unintended stuff interests me. Same with all the little details in the comic book which do little to add to the philosopy of the thing, but get me thinking (creatively, sure; I can always use some good inspiration) - e.g. last night, re-reading v.3 yet again I noticed how Dane's shadow in 3.11 pg 12 is clearly the 'i' from the Barbelith graffitti when Dane first smokes the blue mold. Hardly essential the book's overall themes/story, but fun and revelant nonetheless. In a creative thinking sort of way.

I'm really sorry to go about this, Remembrunce; I'm simply uncomfortable with limiting interpretations or scaring off potential posters. I figure if something is stupid, boring or plain wrong it's better to just let it die on the board (like my Jolly Roger speculations on another thread. Couldn't let it lie - for what it's worth no one has agreed with it. Laugh) rather than attacking someone or threatening to leave (all debating aside, your comments are generally quite helpful). I'll shut up now.
 
 
The Natural Way
14:32 / 20.11.02
God, can we stop going round this....

I don't completely right off a linear reading. I never said I did. Just that a great deal of stuff in the comic (including the overall story and its themes) can't be understood that way. Okay? Esp the stuff I originally mentioned at the top of the thread.

But as for this:

"Furthermore it is 22 pages, and, I presume, when you read it you started at page one and ended on page 22. For a non-linear reading of said issue you would have had to start at a different page and work foward or backward from there. Interestingly."

This just isn't fair. Fuck. I don't want to have to cut and paste my Mulholland Drive paragraph. Please read other people's responses. I read the comic's 22 pages in a linear fashion - reading in a linear fashion does not equal linear narrative. C'mon....Time goes completely skew-whiff in 1.

I said Tom created the Outer Church. But I should've put the word in quotes. Okay, you want magick (most of the "conceptual" stuff you refer to is magick, anyway - its unpacking relying, as it does, on a poetic, sympathetic, fractal model of reality [in direct accord w/ magickal thinking]; and being, as it is, an attempt on Grant's behalf to translate into words and pictures what he understands to be one of the "highest" magickal experiences attainable), you got magick... So...Tom "shrinks reality down to a single point", yeah?

So what happens?

He enters into the initiation of The Outer Church. As Satan explains to Jack, as Jack explains to Gaz: "it all shrinks down to a dot...all the stars and all the days". This is the experience of death - the ecstasy of Abaddon (see Counting to None) - ego's full stop. But, as Satan (and the final page of the Invisibles [whoever thought the singularity at the end of time would be a FULL STOP? Brilliant!]) makes clear, this is simply the beginning of the birth process. One can stop there, at the blackhole at the centre of things, and hook up with the terrible, inverted shit that "lives" there, or one can proceed. Freddie realises that. The Outer Church isn't a "place", it's an initiation, and the initiation occurs outside time.

Am I being clear now?
 
 
The Natural Way
14:34 / 20.11.02
I'm starting a thread on this. Let's do the beardgroup thing properly.
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
14:41 / 20.11.02
you 'lot' are bonkers.
 
 
Aertho
14:52 / 20.11.02
Ninety eight posts later and I'm still nowhere near a solid definition of a fiction suit. Damn my quest for control.
 
 
some guy
15:16 / 20.11.02
Chesed - a fiction suit is something one wears to become someone else. The "wearing" can be literal (as in the case of John-A-Dreams "wearing" Quimper, Flint and Satan suits) or metaphorical (as in the case of Grant Morrison "wearing" King Mob, or your existence as Chesed in the online world). That's it. The literal usage is made clear in 3.2 (and again in Grant's interview in Anarchy for the Masses), but it expands to "reality" fairly simply.
 
 
some guy
15:52 / 20.11.02
Also, I think the time suit is the fiction suit - if it carries you inside the solid, you remain in your current persona (Robin) but if it carries you outside the solid, you re-enter as a new player (Quimper).
 
 
Perfect Tommy
16:51 / 20.11.02
Reading it as a literal adventure series yields Z ... but not without some pretty big problems to sort through.
--Lawrence

I think this might be why I have the tendency to insist that the linear reading is "wrong", or at least "less right" than the off-the-page reading, for this reason:

If you look at the solar system, and imagine the Earth to be at the center with all orbits circular, it's very complicated. If you put the Sun at the center, but continue to believe that orbits are circular, it's not a lot better. But when you assume that the orbits can be ellipses, the epicycles and such weirdshit disappear--the "story" of how the planets move *works* in a simple way.

Same thing with 'The Invisibles'.

Of course, the thing I really love about the comic is that even if I don't agree with everything it presents, it's so dense you can fucking orbit it.
 
 
Aertho
17:26 / 20.11.02
Now it's just funny.

I know all that already, Laurence. Hell, I wear a fiction suit almost every day in plain reality.

Am I right in thinking that "nonlinear" and "metaphorical" are separate things in Ivisiverse?
I get how a Archon is bigger than 4-D. And I do get how flashbacks work and reverse-temporal cause and effect. I don't have a problem with Sensitive Criminal's sex scene, or even the various ends of the universe in 2012. I get the conceptual physics.

But my problem is this: IF I accept your rationale, I develop even MORE questions that will unfold into a debate that pits physics versus metaphor.
Here:

if it carries you inside the solid, you remain in your current persona (Robin) but if it carries you outside the solid, you re-enter as a new player (Quimper).

So the time suit transported John outside of 4-d Space, which transformed him into a Gray/antibody? And this "John" antibody was independant enough AFTER this initial transformation to venture back in time, get caught, get raped, and get burned?

Or: taken outside of 4-D space, the "John" persona split -becoming a Gray, as well as a Archon, as well as travelling back in as Jack Flint.

Or: once a human persona travelled outside of 4-D space, it simultaneously became all personas inside 4-d and Out of it. All Archons are John, all people are John, are Grays are John. What happened to the Quimper Gray could've happened to any Gray, they're ALL John. What happened to Jack Flint could've happened to George Harper, if HE was the one undergoing personality destructions. One more tidbit: "once I was a little light"... John's initial venture past 4-D may have ignited the Big Bang?

The last supposition is also the most successful because it directly attacks the idea of individuality(metaphor) and negates the control of temporal physics(physics). Two birds, one stone. And the "John as the Reader" is also appropriate, too.

Is this all something I should've gotten from simply reading the book?
 
 
some guy
17:50 / 20.11.02
So the time suit transported John outside of 4-d Space, which transformed him into a Gray/antibody? And this "John" antibody was independant enough AFTER this initial transformation to venture back in time, get caught, get raped, and get burned?

Grant basically said that when you re-enter the solid, it is in a new form with no memories of your previous self. Flint recalls his earlier forms in V3 only after regressing to the primordial essence of his being during his (second) initiation in Satanstorm.

Or: once a human persona travelled outside of 4-D space, it simultaneously became all personas inside 4-d and Out of it. All Archons are John, all people are John, are Grays are John. What happened to the Quimper Gray could've happened to any Gray, they're ALL John. What happened to Jack Flint could've happened to George Harper, if HE was the one undergoing personality destructions.

Erm, yes and no. I think here is where we bump up against the literal/metaphoric barrier. In one sense, we are all connected and the same. But in another sense, this isn't actually true - it is our reality that is the fetus, not humanity itself. Morrison is insistant that Quimper, Satan and John are the same person, and yet this person is not Lord Fanny ("always look for the guy in the white suit"). This is an example of what works in metaphor falling apart through a literal examination. As I said, the series is not without major flaws.

"once I was a little light"... John's initial venture past 4-D may have ignited the Big Bang?

This is brilliant. We should explore this more...

Is this all something I should've gotten from simply reading the book?

I'm going to be a little controversial and say no. Grant is on record in so many places about this series that I can't believe that we're not all as influenced by what he says he intended as what is actually in the series itself. The Jolly Roger example is the most obvious, but Morrison was "explaining" the series before it even ended. A lot of what we throw around here comes from those interviews, and not the comic itself. Certainly we all seem to "know" the meaning behind the Ashley Wood pages even though we all also admit they are incomprehensible...
 
 
arcboi
18:12 / 20.11.02
I think one of the problems here is that some people are lucky enough to either have read Anarchy For The Masses or have read every GM interview going. Some of us haven't and therefore find some of these posts pretty confusing. This stuff about Jolly Roger for instance and also the John/Quimper/Satan thing.

It might help in those situations if the poster just provides more details on what GM said to stop some of us scratching our heads.

I'm fine with the non-linear stuff and the fuzzy concept of the fiction suit, but I'm always interested in GM's sources of inspiration - hence the supercontext query - because it helps to grasp more of what GM was trying to convey in the series.

Some of the ideas I've read here are really interesting though, even if they are just theories or opinions.
 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
  
Add Your Reply