Phoenix and Pandora: The Comic Book Goddesses Of 2012

Editor's Note: this article was originally published in February of this year, before the resolution of "Avengers Vs. X-Men," the announcement of the Marvel NOW! sort-of "rebooting," or much of the DC Comics possibly "universe-changing" "Trinity War" event news. To make a long story short -- I was right on the money here.

While mainstream comic books are still largely perceived as being mostly about -- and for -- males, the irony is that the focal characters for two of the "events" hitting Big Comics in 2012 are both female (or, at least, representing the Feminine). I am talking about Phoenix, who will somehow impact the "Avengers Vs. X-Men: miniseries in a big way, and the mysterious hooded Pandora, who has been making her way through a bunch of cameos in all of DC's "New 52" titles and has been inferred to be of some major importance to the DCU this year. 

Phoenix

Pandora

The namesakes of both entities -- which are both seven letters long and start with a "P" -- can be traced back to Ancient Greece (and, if you are feeling particularly inspired, even further in time than that). Phoenix is the firebird who represents resurrection and renewal, and Pandora is the "first woman" who accidentally opened up a jar or "box" that released all manner of evils upon mankind.

The paths of the two comic book characters -- and their mythological counterparts -- intersect in another interesting way. According to one account, the only thing left in Pandora's box after she opened it was Hope -- and it is rumored that the "host" Phoenix is looking for in "Avengers Vs. X-Men" is the messianic character Hope.

Scarlet Witch and Hope, two potential "hosts" for the Phoenix Force, within a yonic symbol

We can even stretch this connection further (and believe me, I realize it's a bit of a stretch) by noting that both DC's Pandora and another version of Phoenix (Rachel Summers) both have similar lined patterns on their faces. Both these characters are heavily involved with the concept of alternate universes or "Earths" -- as indeed Hope from the X-Men is as well. The convoluted history of Phoenix's most famous host, Jean Grey, is often cited as a criticism of Marvel's continuity, and Pandora seems to be sent down from a cadre of omnipotent cosmic comic book editors in order to "fix" the pseudo-rebooted continuity of the "New 52" line of DC comics.

Pandora has even infiltrated DC's children's comic "Tiny Titans"

Here's where things get even more potentially interesting. If Pandora fixes and reconciles the DC continuity, will Phoenix (whoever she turns out to be) do the same by giving a "New 52" type "rebooting" of the Marvel universe? Pure speculation -- but the point is, these two major events at both DC and Marvel cannot but help to in some ways mirror each other. Their respective universes are but two in an infinite multiverse whose main qualities are ironically both uniqueness and interdependence. They can no more be truly separate from each other as comic books can be truly without a feminine influence. Pandora -- "the first woman," the primal Feminine -- literally stalks the entire DC Universe, while Phoenix's formidable fiery bird-shape casts her ominous light upon Marvel's greatest superheroes.

And I can't think of a better year for all this to go down than 2012 -- the so-called "year of change."

Read More

Neil Gaiman's "Letter From A Scared Actress" -- And Why Freelancers Need To Be Careful

Comic writer/novelist Neil Gaiman has published two letters on his site from actress Anna Gurji, who appeared in the controversial short film/trailer "Innocence Of Muslims". She feels quite horrible about the entire business, as you can quite imagine:

"I feel awful about the lies, about the injustice, about the cruelty, about the violence, about the death of innocent people, about the pain of offended people, about the false accusations. I don’t know what else to do but speak the truth. I will not go into hiding (since I have nothing to hide), because if we don’t speak the truth, there is no world worth living for."

Gurji then goes on to tell how she and the rest of the crew were duped into filming a movie that was originally entitled "Desert Warriors." Of particular interest is this:

"My character Hilary was a young girl who is sold (against her own free will) by her parents to a tribe leader known as GEORGE."

George?!

Of course, the film was later altered and redubbed, with "George" being replaced by "Muhammad" and "Desert Warrior" being replaced with "Innocence of Muslims."

The inclusion of such a banal, commonplace, and thoroughly American name as George (no offense to the Georges reading this) in the script makes me feel like this was totally a set-up -- a film purposely created to create controversy and start riots.

But while a number of conservative websites are falling over backward to defend the producer of the film's "free speech" -- some even insinuating that the FBI's investigation of the film is tantamount to the persecution of Christians -- who is looking out for Gurji and the other crew members who might be getting death threats over this film?

The actress also was promised by producer "Sam Bacile" that "the premiere of the movie was going to happen sometime soon and I would get a good amount of tickets to invite my friends and family."

Again, she was lied to:

"I have never been informed about the premiere after that (if it ever happened) and have not seen the final product (if there is any, except for the short one that is uploaded online."

If there is any lesson at all to be had from this -- and this is totally not a "blame-the-victim" observation (Gurji was an actress from another country, the language barrier making it even harder for her to figure out that something was up) -- it's to be really really sure of who you are working for:

"A year ago, in the summer of 2011, I submitted my materials to various projects on the Explore Talent web-site. I received a call from the casting director of the movie “Desert Warrior”, and my audition date was scheduled."

It doesn't matter if you're an actor or even a comic book creator -- research who you are working for. Anybody can make a halfway professional-looking website. Question things that seem suspicious. Get references. I know the temptation is there to just take the first gig that comes your way...and that paying gigs are sometimes such a rarity that you might just jump on the chance.

But what if you're really working on political propaganda, without you even realizing it?

Here's sort of an example. When I had my previous comics blog some years ago, I was pitched a story by an acquaintance. I agreed to cover the story and "break the exclusive" -- but when I did research on the company, I realized they had really shady (possibly criminal) roots. In fact -- my personal blog was being used not just for publicity, but outright propaganda (complete with a list of "talking points")! And so I had to back out. And that was reallllllllly awkward. But I was so relieved that I backed out.

Now somebody please tell this to Fred Williamson.

Read More

Predictions In The Era Of Timewave Zero

I had thought about writing a follow-up to the "Predictions About The Comic Book Industry I Made 5 Years Ago" piece, but then I figured it was very tactless to just make a stark list like that and then say, "well I'm done here, have a nice day." Instead, here are some conversation-starters.

Contemplate how much technology has changed from 100 A.D. to 1800. Do the same for 1800 to 1900. Then contemplate how much it's changed from 1900 to 1930. Now contemplate how much it's changed from 1930 to 1950. Then 1950 to 1970. 1970 to 1980. 1980 to 1985. 1985 to 1989. 1989 to 1992. Now compare how much technology has changed from 2010 to 2012.


Now calculate how much it will further change in five more years. If you honestly believe that regardless of these rolling shifts in our technological paradigm, comics will still be more or less the same -- or that any of the everyday actions and notions and goals and methodologies or systems of exchange will remain in an arrangement that you find familiar -- then you are simply wrong.

(Look up: Singularity, Timewave Zero)

I can really just stop here. Mini-forecasts about things like which character is going to do what, or whether comics will stay vertical vs. horizontal in format, page counts, digital interfaces, corporate takeover, blah blah blah. These are tiny tiny things, relative trivia. You need to think bigger than that.

I was also going to say a bunch of idealistic stuff, but why even bother? I'm just going to ride the wave; if I see you there, I'll say hello.

Read More

Is Barack Obama The Superman Of "Earth 23"? An Analysis Of Action Comics #9

Action Comics #9 was one of the most bizarre comics I've read in some time -- extremely meta, even for Grant Morrison. Having read it after recently finishing the Our Hero: Superman on Earth by Tom De Haven (Yale University Press), I recognized many similarities between the two, almost as if Morrison was specifically referencing the book. The issue, written by Morrison and Sholly Fisch, has a lot of (at times quite ambivalent) commentary regarding the present man in the White House (if you believe that the Superman of Earth 23 is indeed based on Barack Obama) -- though here I'm just going to focus mostly on the elements of the story that specifically reference Superman as as mythical/mystical entity.

The Origins Of "The Curse Of Superman"
We can link even the title of the main story, "The Curse Of Superman," with pages 184-185 of the De Haven book, where the author investigates if there is indeed a Curse of Superman (exact wording). While he notes that George Reeves and Christopher Reeve have both had "bad luck" (which is an understatement), the rest of the actors who played the Man of Steel seemed to be OK (though Dean Cain's illustrious career in sleazy TV movies is sort of on the fence, in my opinion).

Is the Clark Kent of the other alternate universe in Action Comics #9 -- the one who is horribly burned and presumably crippled for life -- referencing Chris Reeve? He utters, despite the pain, "The curse of Superman..." Unlike other Clark Kents, he seems to not be superhuman...his only power being to find a way to "tune into the sound vibrations of what had to be other universes," making "mind movies" of a "Superman brand." This is similar to what an actor tasked with portraying Superman might do.


But if, as De Haven has pointed out, there is no "Hollywood" Superman curse, where did it come from? He writes,

"No, the only verifiable Superman curse is the one that Jerry Siegel swore in April 1975 against Warner Communications, the Salkinds, and his old archenemy Jack Liebowitz.

And by God, Siegel actually cursed the movie! In Our Hero we read a portion of a press release the writer sent out in 1975: "I, Jerry Siegel, the co-originator of SUPERMAN, put a curse on the SUPERMAN movie." Now, any rational person would understand that there is no such thing as curses. But when you start to delve into the esoteric -- the way Morrison, author of the occult treatise "Pop Magic!", has done extensively -- you take a slightly different viewpoint on such matters.

Overcorp and "The Superman Brand"
And indeed, we find out in Action Comics #9 the origin of the Curse of Superman -- a thinly-disguised metaphor for Siegel's sale of Superman. This is pretty heavy-handed stuff, with the wicked "Overcorp" strong-arming Kent and his "co-creators" Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane into a crooked contract. The company's symbol is vaguely reminiscent of both the old DC "swoosh" and the new "peel," and, more shockingly, the Overcorp logo itself is done in the familiar Watchmen font and yellow color (particularly striking when you consider the Before Watchmen ad spread on the very next page)! It can even be said that the head of Overcorp bears a resemblance to Siegel "arch enemy" Liebowitz himself.

This ain't subtle, folks, especially coupled with dialogue like (cue evil eyes) "That's it. The dotted line. You won't regret this."

What happens next? Overcorp...

"...had 500 experts lined up. thinking in harmony to streamline the Superman brand for cross-spectrum, wide platform appeal.  

They built a violent, troubled, faceless anti-hero, concealing a tragic secret life, a global marketing icon.  

Everybody wears its brand. 

It makes people feel part of something big and new and cool. 

Superman helps them forget the reality of their drab, obedient, lonely lives."

Now, thanks to selling Superman to Overcorp, the people live in a fascist society, the hero's logo twisted into something almost resembling a swastika. Superman is mass-merchandised, and Kent's original intention to "change lives and inspire people" has gone horribly wrong.

Superman As Tulpa Gone Wrong

This Kent figure most probably represents Jerry Siegel as well, with Jimmy (who is also burnt and presumed dead in the story) being his co-creator Joe Shuster -- and Lois being perhaps Siegel's wife, who carried on legal procedures regarding the Superman copyright after his passing. Lois is the only one of the trio to survive intact (albeit missing an eye -- one-eyed symbolism being important, though I won't go through that High Weirdness in this post), and she is left to fight for the "cause."

And what is the Cause? There's an evil robotic Superman monster on the loose, trying to kill the "creators" of the original Superman. In one of the strangest scenes in the issue, Overcorp Superman graphically kills the tiny Superman of a world inhabited by costumed "super-babies"(!) No, not the Younglings too!

According to Action Comics #9, Kent, Lois and Jimmy created the Superman using their thoughts to make a thoughtform, or "tulpa." De Haven also references Superman-as-tulpa, referencing the opinion of former DC writer Alvin Schwartz in his 1997 book An Unlikely Prophet. Schwartz believed that Superman was a tulpa, literally created by the thoughts and energy behind the many contributors to his mythos.

"No More Heroes"
Now that Overcorp/The Corporation has taken control of the Superman tulpa, he has become evil -- embodied by the deadly robotic "Uber-Superman". And while the Superman of Earth 23 that Lois has sought help from is deemed "Superman done right" by her, it is the "God-Slaying," myth-slaying Lex Luthor who delivers the crucial injuries to the creature (shooting into his eye and also directly through his Overcorp symbol). Lex says he hates Superman/President Calvin Ellis not because of the color of his skin, but because he hates people elevated to the status of "gods" based on legend and the manipulation of Myth and Symbol. He hates all heroes. He is the best candidate to wipe the evil Uber-Superman out because his heart is closed to the charms of superheroes.

Luthor thinks the "raw essence" of Superman is a "smug fascist bully." De Haven concludes at the end of Our Hero this about Superman: "As with athletes and artists, there has always been a selfish, even a self-serving quality to Superman, to Superman's ego." At the very final conclusion of that analysis of Superman in pop-culture, the author points out that Superman ultimately does good not due to any self-sacrifice on his part, but because it's fun for him. Not very encouraging, and neither are Superman/President Ellis's actions at the end of the back-up story, where he cavalierly manipulates his position and his abilities to go beyond the letter of the law -- for good, of course.

There is a deep pessimism about heroes in Action Comics #9, and it almost feels as if Morrison might be taking the side of the fanatic Luthor character (who, in his wide-eyed rantings, could stand in for any number of current conspiracy theory gurus). Maybe unleashing heroes/tulpas upon the world is too dangerous. They can fall into the wrong hands. They can get dazzled by their own abilities and corrupted. By assigning the "magic" number 23 to this particular Earth, the writer is signaling that there is something really important here for us to read, something "key." 23 is the number representing synchronicity, and Morrison is synchronizing it all -- the upcoming election, the latest motions in the Siegel lawsuit against DC, perhaps even the New 52 and De Haven's own book.

Obama As Superman As Symbol
And while Morrison seems to be solidly in Siegel's court, his support of President Ellis/Obama seems to be another matter entirely. Like many conspiracy theorists claim about Obama (and Morrison regularly borrows wholesale from these guys), it supposedly isn't a race thing for "God-Slayer" Luthor about the President...it's a hatred for the Symbol and Mythology. Through photo opps and press conference quips, Obama has linked himself to the Superman character. The famous painting by Alex Ross depicting Obama in a Superman-like pose (which looks nearly identical to the cover to Action Comics #9) also has solidified this connection in the mind of the public.

So what exactly is this issue saying about the president? Why does Fisch's back-up story basically reiterate and validate the Birther argument...coming not from crazy Luthor but Superman's friend Nubia? Why does President Ellis have a fleet of sinister-looking robot doubles controlled by Brainiac (!) -- especially in light of the fact that when the Superman tulpa became evil, he too took on the form of a robot? This isn't that issue of Spider-Man with the smiling president on the cover...this is something completely different. I could sit here all day and give specific examples of what conspiracy theorist ideas Morrison is referencing all through this issue regarding our President. I could also base an entire research paper on just this one issue -- imagine what might happen when Action Comics #10 comes out!

But as weird as the content of this issue is, the weirdest thing about Action Comics #9 is this: DC Comics actually printed it. Is this the manifestation of what Morrison describes as covertly destabilizing the corporate system by working at cross-purposes within it? Or does the publisher score the final point in this metaphysical game of leap-frog by publishing the "destabilizing" element -- literally owning the story, and reaping the benefits of publicity?

Read More

Grant Morrison: Can He Serve Two Masters?

"Grant Morrison, I Am Disappoint"

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?

The Universal And Eternal Dilemma: Simon Magus Vs. John The Baptist
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.

Batman and Wonder Woman: More Than Just Lasso n' Leather Freaks?
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.

Read More