Alex Zalben at MTV Geek has made the case far better than I could about what was so depressingly disconcerting about this recent Grant Morrison interview in Playboy:
The concern here is that he’s slipping more and more into predictable behavior, relying on looks at the past, rather than moving comics into the future. Sure, it’s a tough battle, given you’re on the losing side: fans and companies complain they don’t want change, so why should you go out on a limb to provide it? But really, the first superheroes weren’t created based on expectations, they were created as a way of inspiring the world outside comics to be better than itself. And the world did change... So can’t superhero comics change with it?
We used to look to Grant Morrison, for better or worse, to provide that change, and to be the guy who was mostly misunderstood in his own lifetime. It’s a thankless job, but for years, he took the position and embraced it. Ironically? We don’t want him to go changing on us now.
The op-ed goes on further to speculate if Morrison isn't just burnt-out after working on so many mainstream projects and facing the wrath of fans. The sort of "if this is what you want Fanboys, well let me be the first to stick the funnel down your throat and force that yummy-yum-yum gravy down." Behind every cynic beats the muffled, cholesterol-daubed heart of a former idealist, etc. The similarity of Morrison's commentary on the "essence" of these characters and that of Frederic Wertham is in particular quite stunning; I guess it all depends on the messenger, huh?
What A Drag It Is Getting Old
This seems to happen quite a bit to many of my idols as they age. For example, I was a big Dennis Miller fan back in the day, and he has become quite conservative since then. Frank Miller, too. It makes me wonder if it isn't just an unavoidable consequence of aging -- not only aging, but aging and still trying to not go completely insane and bankrupt as the result of being in the middle of this stuff for 20, 30, 40 years. Certainly people like Hunter S. Thompson seemed to retain more of their anarchist, anti-establishment edge as they got older, but at least he had an extensive gun collection to blow off steam (among other things). But what of Grant Morrison, spending such a long time working for the comics mainstream? Certainly, I assume he received more free rein to do what he wanted with his characters than say Joe Fill-In -- but working on mainstream comics with key branded characters will inevitably involve compromise, even for someone of his stature. How long can you balance your genius with the necessities of such work? Can you successfully do so? What is the trade-off?
This is an universal and eternal dilemma (reference Matthew 6:24) that entails sacrifice any way you look at it. Morrison gets to be Mr. Cool in Playboy, impeccably groomed and the essence of chic; in contrast, Alan Moore looks shaggy, baggy-eyed and somewhat fanatic in various interviews, the Wronged Man. Simon Magus versus John the Baptist in his animal skins. Is it better to metaphorically sacrifice these characters we've loved so much on the altar in a flourish of dismissive cynicism, or martyr ourselves for these creations rather than see them besmirched or commercialized?
Is the key that Morrison never created Batman, Wonder Woman, and the like? Is it the co-opting of one's own creations that eventually drives the creator insane? Whereas Morrison is writing about entities that have seen life as cake-toppers and inflatable bop-bags as well as comic books? So at the end of the day, Morrison can just say, "Well, he was a f**king cake-topper anyway. Lego. Bop-bag. Camp icon." At the end of the day, he can just claim a higher level of Cool, by presenting the very act of making mainstream comics as a conscious, ironic act, like painting soup-cans. Hence referring to characters like Batman and Wonder Woman as nothing more than what Wertham saw in them over 60 years ago, as nothing more than the Pow! Sock! camp icons from the 1960s.
Why not discuss the role of tragedy and childhood trauma in the psychological make-up of Bruce Wayne, as a topic at the heart of Batman that goes beyond the same tired Freudian/Werthamian/Mr. Roperian speculation as to whether or not he wanted to have sex with his underage ward? Why not acknowledge the role Wonder Woman played as a feminist icon in the 1970s, discussing how she evolved as a symbol? To acknowledge something deeper to these characters -- something deeper that might have a strong impact for positive change and self-reflection on the countless readers who have read their tales -- to acknowledge that, and to then have to deal with the mainstream System, comics as Product, that's all too much. That's too painful. Then he would have to also acknowledge The Universal And Eternal Dilemma.
But the other side of the coin is that if you're going to buck the system, say "F U" to the mainstream, and advocate tons of change -- especially in such a tiny industry as comic-making -- you will not only face a tremendous amount of nerd rage but limited job opportunities as well. If you are relatively lucky like Mr. Alan Moore, you have already built a substantial following based on your previous mainstream work, possess a prolific amount of creator-owned work to publish, and have enough various naturally-derived substances to kill the pain. Some of us would only be left with the substances, unfortunately, and the problem as to how to pay for them on a regular basis.
Better Living Through Magick?
I think Grant Morrison doesn't need the Mainstream. If I had to guess, he has already started to plant stakes in that Utopian Creator-Owned fallow field of untapped potential I've heard so much about. He has also spoken in the past of the rather anarchical practice of planting magickal sigils deep within his work as a way to counteract -- or transform --The System:
For every McDonald's you blow up, "they" will build two. Instead of slapping a wad of Semtex between the Happy Meals and the plastic tray, work your way up through the ranks, take over the board of Directors and turn the company into an international laughing stock. You will learn agreat deal about magic on the way. Then move on to take our Disney, Nintendo, anyone you fancy.
But does this really work, or is it merely wishful thinking? Is it too easy to get seduced on the way to your Grand Trickster Play? Can you really "game" The System -- via magick or otherwise? If corporate logos and brands are as powerful as Morrison claims they are...is it not possible that they can work the other way, bewitching and bedazzling you without you even realizing it? Is the proper method to embrace the Brand, the System, in order to shape it -- or, like Moore, banish it completely from your line of sight and retreat into the wilderness?
And the final question is, does any of this even matter at all? Why waste our time defending the honor of imaginary creatures? Unless you believe, maybe, that these Bop Bags and Bondage Queens are really Gods.
Happy May Day.
0 comments:
Post a Comment