The Return of Bruce Wayne #2 hit the stands Wednesday and it was f*ing awesome.  I don’t review Grant Morrison’s work because, by own admission, Morrison’s writing reduces me to a rabid fanboy. In keeping with this tradition, this is not a review, a recap or even commentary on the story. I have left those tasks to more capable writers than I.

If you permit me, I want to get a bit panoramic and talk about the idea of an Oeuvre. As I was reading David Uzumeri’s fantastic Annotations: ‘Batman: The Return of Bruce Wayne’ #2 it dawned upon me: one of the reasons Grant Morrison stands out as one of the mediums finest writers, of all time, is because for the last 20 years or so Morrison has been diligently constructing his Oeuvre at DC.

What do I mean by an Oeuvre?  Dictionaries usually give one of the two following definitions: 1) a work of art 2) a body of work; the total sum of output produced by an artist, writer, or composer.

I am going rely on a slightly modified, modified in order to account for both the periodical nature of comic book writing as well as the comic book industry’s division into two mainstream publishing houses and a myriad of smaller independent publishers, version of the second definition. I propose the following definition of an Oeuvre: a body of work, displaying an underlying unity, that not only originates in a shared universe but irrevocably refashions the precepts of that such universe.

Stan Lee has an Oeuvre. Niel Gaiman has an Oeuvre. Jack Kirby had several Oeuvres.

With this latest mini-series, we can now add Morrison to this illustrious list. His oeuvre ranges from as early as Animal Man (and perhapsJLA) to the Kingdom, 52, Seven Soldiers, Final Crisis, Batman, Batman And Robin, and now Return of Bruce Wayne. More-over the goal of his oeuvre, which firmly stated is summed up by Morrison’s much repeated maxim “It’s all in-continuity,” is finally coming to full fruition.

Provoked by Damon Beres’ Return of Bruce Wayne and a Comics Manifesto, Jay Galette had the following to say about Morrison’s run on Batman:

The Return of Bruce Wayne isn’t just a story about Batman testing himself through time, it’s about Batman being reborn and rebuilt through time. This is a man who we have seen do the impossible yet there are still fans who cry “Batman shouldn’t be time-traveling or fighting aliens! I like him more grounded!” So Grant Morrison is taking him and putting him through an impossible paradigm to give birth to a new Batman – one whose origins lie in Bat-demons, the spite of an evil fallen god and history itself.

What does it mean for superhero comics as a whole, when the only way we can accept a man handling the impossible is by seeing him birthed through it? What does that mean for us as human beings and things we think mankind can handle?

Morrison is trying to change the way we think about Batman so that we can take in all those crazy stories from the 50s that no one ever talks about. This epic sweeping story he’s writing is all about making us willing to accept any and all stories about he Dark Knight.

He’s asking us to take superheroes less seriously…

…when I say he wants us to take heroes less seriously I don’t really mean the heroes individually, I mean the concept of superhero all together. There’s been a lot of things built up around it and the worst ones are easily the notions of continuity and I guess what I’d have to term as being “genre-walls.

I vehemently disagree with Gallette’s conclusion despite absolutely agreeing with his analysis. I was with him up until he stated that Morrison wants us to take comic books less seriously. What I believe Morrison to be up to is nothing short of a radical restructuring of what it means for a superhero comic to be taken serious. Since, perhaps, Alan Moore’s deconstruction of the superhero genre with The Watchmen the experience of what a serious superhero comic book is has been synonymous with the application of a certain modernist literary technique: psychological realism.  The dark, grim and gritty stuff is only an epiphenomenon. Perhaps an inevitable one, given that once a genre turns to psychological realism its defining trope tends to become trauma, but none-the-less it remains secondary.

The introduction of this element is a true literary break and as with all literary breaks once introduced you can not write in the same vein again. What I mean by this is not that bronze and silver age-like stories can’t be written but that they are no longer experienced the same way, at worst the stories just seem naive or at best they are retro, homages (but thus still in the domain of the inauthentic).

Grant Morrison project is not to construct a universe that returns to the sensibilities of those wacky 50′s stories but a universe where they are admissible. A comic book medium where the zany 50′s stories are accepted after the Watchmen is not the same medium where they were originally produced. Here, I would like to refer to what in philosophy is referred to as the difference between negative and indefinite judgment. As fans’ of Robert Kirkman’s the Walking Dead know very well there is a difference between someone being not dead and someone being undead. The positive judgment “that person is dead” can be refuted with the negative judgment “that person is not dead” or with the infinite judgement “that person is undead.” What this infinite judgment does is open up an alternative to what appears to be a deadlock between binary opposition.  What we have in Morrison’s oeuvre is precisely this attempt to open up an alternative to a certain deadlock in modern (superhero) comics. To break it down,  (positive judgment) modern comics (unlike Silver-Age comics) are serious, (negative judgment) We should not take modern comic books seriously, (infinite judgment) We should take silver-age comics seriously. Obviously this does not mean a simple application of what made modern comic books appear serious; it means completely rebuilding from the ground up (thus displacing psychological realism), the experience of serious comic book storytelling. This arduous task is reflected, as Jay pointed out, in Bruce Wayne’s own journey through his history into his present. How fitting then that his return threatens to destroy the world?

I hate when mosts liberals talk about immigration reform. Why? Because liberalism, or to be more precise Social-democracy, cannot offer any concrete solutions to the immigration problems (or really an political-economic problem arising out of the conditions of global capital) facing America, and other modern western democracies. They can only offer cheap moralization. And thus we arrive at  this stupid little gem, published by the Comics Alliance today.

In the article the author points to the symmetry between an alien superhero who does good, and the good an illegal alien does by providing money to a loved one back home. It tugs at the heart strings, no doubt. But what is it really saying if we take into account its ideological bent. Its celebration of the workers who are willing to do these shitty jobs only really serves to legitimatize a deeply unegalitarian society that necessitate these divisions to begin with.

Here I return to my point, liberals cannot provide answers to illegal immigration reform. If we disregardard the facist right, who have a unhealthy spiritual attachment to land, it is the right (capitalist. I don’t mean ideologically capitalist, I am talking about the actual functionaries of capital) that benefit the most from immigration. Capitalism has always needed a steady supply of cheap labour. In late capitalism, otherwise known as transnational global capitalism, this cheap labour must be allowed to shift freely through global points thus making national boundaries an impediment to capital. Think about it, who did the most to try and reform immigration laws. George W. Bush.

What alternatives can liberals provide? Make illegals into citizens or residents? Okay what then? The very reason illegals can sell their labour as a commodity hinges on the fact that their labour isn’t backed with the rights of a citizen. If that is the case you will only be increasing the nunbers of the already growing class of permanently unemployed.

There are only three concrete options. 1) The Arizona route, otherwise known as fascism, where American becomes super-isolationist and cuts themselves off from global capital. 2) The George Bush option, other-wise know as authoritarian capitalism, where there is some sort of compromise that legitimatizes a worker’s presence in a state but doesn’t grant their labour any rights thus legitimizing a permanent underclass. 3) Finally their is communism, which the options that goes beyond the very cordinates of capital a therefore elimating the real problem altogether; the nessecity for a workers to sell their labour.

There we have it: We can be fascist, we can be capitalist or we can be communists. However there is no Social-democratic option. So please, please stop talking about superman as if he was some sort of champion for the politically oppressed. Superman is the champion of the status quo. Any portrayal of alien workers as superheroes is just distasteful and offensive to their plight.

Comics Alliance informs me that today is ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.’ Hmmm, I guess I am gonna get in trouble today.  As a comic book fan, a Muslim, and subject immersed in western ideology, I find it incredibly difficult to exhume my own thoughts on this complicated matter.

First of all, I would like to state my disdain for the framework which sets to understand this matter as offensive. The author writes:

There have certainly been plenty of recent examples of other faiths being mocked in cartoons in our culture; there have been many, many images and cartoons during the ongoing child abuse scandal in Catholic Church that would doubtless profoundly offend devout Catholics, but as a country that values free speech that is part of the deal that we all make.

To say that Muslim’s find depictions of the prophet offensively is gross missrepresentation of what is at stake for them. Framing it in terms of offense reduces this to a matter of taste when Muslim percieve this as an attack on the central tenant of Islam: Tawhid, Islam uncompromising conception of God as one and unique. In Islam, unlike other Abrahamic religions,  God has absolutely no human qualities. God  stands independently outside his creation. Thus, portraying God is haram (prohibited) not only because it is a pointless enterprise but because any portrayal posits him as a being that can be reconciled with his creation. It posits god as immanent while tawhid is quite clear that god is completely transcendent.

Depictions of the prophet are a little more complicated. Although the prophet has been exalted amongst men he is still a man.  However, because of his central place within Islam Muslim thought find depictions of him very troublesome as they fear it encourages a particularly heinous form of Shirk (idolatray) which is a distortion of tawhid.

In the comics alliance article the author writes

I have great respect for the Muslim faith and those who believe in it, and while I think it would be childish and cruel to offend for the sake of offending, I believe that what is at stake here is more important than being polite or striving not to offend.

“Daily Show” commentator Aasif Mandvi — a self-described liberal Muslim — recently commented on the controversy, admitting that while depictions of Mohammed might give him offense, “here’s what’s more upsetting. Someone, in the name of a faith that I believe in, threatening another person for doing it.”

First of all what the hell does liberal Islam mean? Religions don’t come a la carte. This is the tolerance at its worse or, as Philosopher Slavoj Zizek would say, it is intolerance to difference itself. I will tolerate you as long as you don’t get to close. I will respect your beliefs only the condition that you don’t take your beliefs to seriously, that you do not indentify directly with them. By stating “I believe that what is at stake here is more important than being polite or striving not to offend,” a decision to devalue Islams core teaching in favor of human rights has already occured. Which is the writers prerogative but do not pretend that it is any more inclusive than Islam. It inclusivity always comes with precondition that we leave our difference at the door.

My point is that events like this make it easier for Islamist to believe that the West is really out to destroy their faith, and they’re right. There is no compromise between westerm human rights and religious commandments.

the Buy Pile logo

No, this time I am not talking about Titans: Villians For Hire. At least not in itself. The atrocious event is that one of my favorite and most respected comic book critics, Hannibal Tabu, put that piece of garbage on his read pile. What the fuck?! Look, I am not a Hannibal hater (his weekly column the Buy Pile is known to be decisive). For god’s sake I left the man a glowing comment that you can read here. I was livid so I wrote the following on his Hundred and Four Blog (which was promptly deleted):

I’ve been trying to wait until you put your new commentary track for this week but I really just can’t wait. I have to say, man, your review this week was a big frikkin let down. I can’t believe you put Titans for Hire on your read list. You of all people!

I always find you astute reading of specific sub-textual racial politics so refreshing. In a week where you (justifiably) criticized atonishing X-Men: Xenogenesis” #1 as propaganda (and I quote “A hateful, tedious bit of comics that had at its root the idea that a large populace of extrahuman babies being born in sub-Saharan Africa.”) you give Titans a pass? What, is it not racially offensive because the murdered, in whats was basically a disgusting and heinous snuff film, wasn’t a brother? Or maybe its because the writer is? I liked Wallace’s Ink but this was garbage. Man, I expected YOU to come more legit. Thank god for this. At least someone at CBR had some sense this week.

Salaam,

Yeah. It sucks when those you trust to safeguard something you love fail you.

I am becoming known as that ridiculous guy around the DC  Boards that thinks Geoff Johns is a racist, so why not go for the whole shabang and accuse him of sexism as well? I keed! I keed! Actually, I want to defend Johns. Kinda.

The following solicit came out today:

GREEN LANTERN #57
Written by GEOFF JOHNS
Art and cover by DOUG MAHNKE & CHRISTIAN ALAMY
1:10 White Lantern Variant cover by RYAN SOOK, FERNANDO PASARIN & JOEL GOMEZ
BRIGHTEST DAY continues as what readers have been asking for finally arrives: a male Star Sapphire in the form of the Predator. But how is this entity unlike the others? And what does it want with Carol Ferris? Meanwhile, the White Lantern is defended by an unlikely hero…
Retailers please note: This issue will ship with two covers. Please see the Previews Order Form for more information.
On sale AUGUST 25 • 32 pg, FC, $2.99 US

Geoff Johns has recieved some negative feedback for portraying the Star Sapphires, avatars of love, as exclusively females. However from the looks of this solicitation’s portrayal it doesn’t look like the first male Star Sapphire is going to quiet the critics. Frankly, I find his ridiculously cartoonish portrayal of love more offfensive or even that unbelievably skanky Carol Ferris constume but I digress.  

If you ascribe to the teachings of psychoanalysis it would make sense that the Star Sapphires seem to be mostly women.  Jacques-Alain Miller, the primier lacanian psychoanalyst, had this to say about love in an interview with Hanna Waar:

J.-A. M. – To love, you have to admit your lack, and recognise that you need the other, that you miss him or her. Those that think they’re complete on their own, or want to be, don’t know how to love. And sometimes, they ascertain this painfully. They manipulate, pull strings, but of love they know neither the risk nor the delights.
H. W. – ‘Complete on their own’: only a man could think that…
J.-A. M. – Well spotted! Lacan used to say, ‘To love is to give what you haven’t got.’ Which means: to love is to recognize your lack and give it to the other, place it in the other. It’s not giving what you possess, goods and presents, it’s giving something else that you don’t possess, which goes beyond you. To do that you have to assume your lack, your ‘castration’ as Freud used to say. And that is essentially feminine. One only really loves from a feminine position. Loving feminises. That’s why love is always a bit comical in a man. But if he lets himself get intimidated by ridicule, then in actual fact he’s not very sure of his virility.
H. W. – Is loving more difficult for men then?
J.-A. M. – Oh yes! Even a man in love has flashes of pride, bursts of aggressiveness against the object of his love, because this love puts him in a position of incompleteness, of dependence. That’s why he can desire women he doesn’t love, so as to get back to the virile position he suspends when he loves. Freud called this principle the ‘debasement of love life’ in men: the split between love and sexual desire. (read the whole interview here)

Given this view I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a male represenative of the Star Sapphire, never-mind the predator which is the entity that embodies the source of the Star Sapphire, would be far more likely to give into the more tyrannical urges of love.  Of course such a view is unpopular, as gender studies has been pretty much colonized by post-modernists who insist that any difference between males and female is constructed. What these post-modernists fail to grasp is that just because they are constructed doesn’t make them any less real. More importantly understanding the constructed nature of the divide doesn’t help to bridge it.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you disapprove of Johns portrayal of the Star Sapphires? Or do you think this creates interesting tensions and individuates them from the other corps?

When J. Michael Straczynski was unveiled as the new Superman writer, he had this to say:

Superman could do anything, then maybe I had a chance. Maybe I could become a writer. Maybe I could even learn to fly. That symbol, the S, became a badge for me, and growing up I always made sure I had it somewhere on me, like a shaman’s… For me, and I suspect for a lot of people, that symbol stands for the belief in our own potentiality, in what we think we can do, and try, and aspire to… And there’s a reason for that, a secret no one knows, but I’ll tell you, because of how long I’ve known you, and our longstanding friendship. And the secret is this: The Superman symbol is Kryptonian for No Limits.

Given the overwhelming positive response from long-time Superman fans my first thought was that I suspected this to be a return of a Silver Age sensibility. My second thought was how strange, alien and counterintuitive such a sensibility appears to me (and perhaps all those who came to comics in the late 90s/early 2000s. I was born in ‘87)

I can only rely on my own experience reading comics but it seems to me that this demographic (late teens, early and mid twenties) is a very particular one in the comics books industry. It is somewhat of a lost generation. It is no secret that the comic-book industry is afflicted with a rapidly ageing customer base. Sure there are initiatives at both the Big Two, Marvel For-All-Ages and Johnny DC (this latter of which I think is fantastic and I regularly get for my nephews) to lure children back into comics. But these initiatives are geared towards children 7-13. What about that segment of fans that started reading comics after the bust of the speculative Market.

The first comic I remember reading is The Adventures of Superman #500. I found it packaged at a retail department store with 2 or 3 other comics (I believe the bundle included Valiant comics like Magnus and Turok) for something like 2 dollars. I got my mother to buy it for me mostly because of the allure of the holographic cover (ironic, is it not? It would only be years later that I learned that it was the over-abundance of these gimmicky promotional stunts that made these comics practically worthless.)

What a strange comic book for a 12-year-old to discover! Jonathan Kent suffers a heart attack and has a near death experience where he encounters his long dead brother and his recently deceased son, Clark. Alas, this is no regular near death experience. It is revealed that these visions are constructed by Blaze (some sort of Lucifer type being in DC’s obscure cosmology). They were constructed in order to facilitate the spiritual disconnection of Jonathan and Clark (what?). Jonathan Kent struggles with this being and is eventually rescued by the benevolent but no less mysterious celestial entity Kismet (the how and why eludes me). Kismet shows Jonathan a Kryptonian funeral held for Clark which then becomes the site of a struggle with Jor-El for the soul of Clark. A struggle which Jonathan wins leading him to conclude that he brought back Superman from the dead.

In retrospect the plot of this adventure seems a convoluted and obtuse mess. Perhaps. But at the time I thought it was quite special. To me (and perhaps this was reinforced by the shinny cover) the book was imbued with an almost quasi mystical property. It tackled all these big ideas such death, radical evil, mourning, the afterlife, and fidelity to ‘the good’, which as a twelve-year-old I could only stumble blindly through try to gain a sense of it contours.  The theme that I remember resonated the most was the overwhelming sense of loss. Not just death but a loss that transcended death. Who was Superman? Not his origins, but what was it about such a being that his death is experienced as a profound spiritual absence (yes mostly within the context of the story but who can forget Jay Leno wearing a superman armband).

Since then I have followed Superman, both on paper and off, sometimes closely and sometimes from afar. In those 11 years what I have learned is that I hate Superman. To be clear, I still enjoy reading Superman comics, especially the New Krypton arc despite its flaws (of which there are too many to cite, but more on that later). My point is more that as a denizen of Metropolis my enjoyment of the Superman Mythos is always refracted through my hatred, or at least unavowed resentment, for Superman.

I envision myself in his city, joyously walking through this bursting cosmopolitan environment and then I spot this hazy figure in the Sky. “A bird? A plan? Aghh….” Immediately all the pleasure that I was experiencing is sapped from me, no longer able to recognize any value in human artifacts. Superman makes it all worthless.

I think Mark Millar is a hack but in Superman: Red Son in spite of himself he managed to articulate an essential truth about Superman in our current epoch. Superman is a Tyrant. To quote Lex Luthor from All Star Superman (which in my opinion, is up there with Watchmen and Starman in the definitive superhero canon) “You don’t feel diminished by his very presence?” This is the only analogy that makes sense to me. I’ve never bought the whole Superman is a metaphor for an immigrant. Even if we disregard what I believe to be the no longer canon John Byrne origin, where Superman is actually born on Earth as a result of his ship being some ridiculous sort of birthing matrix, the immigrant angle doesn’t work. He was raised pretty much soon after his birth completely as an American, knowing nothing of his Kryptonian heritage and more importantly neither did anyone else.

Neither do I buy this JMS conception that Superman is a symbol for human potentiality. The adjective super doesn’t merely modify the noun, it completely transform its meaning. Kal-El is only Superman in as much as he is no man at all. In the superman Mythos if anyone is a stand-in for human potentiality it’s, tragically, Lex Luthor. This shines through for a moment in the otherwise abysmal Superman Returns when Luthor tells Kitty Kowalski: “Gods are selfish beings who fly around in little red capes and don’t share their power with mankind. No, I don’t want to be a God. I just want to bring fire to the people.  And I want my cut.”

I think the Superman Mythos are at their most interesting when they cop to the distance that separates Superman from his humanity, and perhaps that Superman chains the world to theirs. In this respect I find myself, quite surprisingly, in a certain agreement with golden-age Superman advocates.  He shouldn’t be depowered, should be able to move the universe with a sneeze etc.  Depowering Superman, in as much as it is an attempt to make him more relatable, while perhaps makes for more interesting plot developments, misses the point of Superman as a character. It reminds me of a satirical commentary made by a contemporary political philosopher:

At the opening game on the country’s [North Korea] first golf course, the beloved president Kim Jong-Il excelled, finishing the entire game of 18 holes in 19 strikes. One can well imagine the reasoning of the propaganda bureaucrat; nobody was going to believe that Kim had managed a hole in one every time, so, to make things realistic, let us concede that, just once, he needed two strikes to succeed.

But the story doesn’t just end there. No, Superman is more dynamic than that. What makes Superman amazing, and in my opinion what redeems Superman as a character, is that he also experiences his absolute freedom as its own prison.  He is Superman is as much as he is not permitted to be Clark Kent all the time.  Here Lex Luther, also from All Star Superman,is again very insightful: “Think about it, without Superman to distract her, you just never know… perhaps cool, cruel Lois Lane might actually have noticed good old Clark, sitting faithfully there in the corner.”  This quotation is endowed with more depth by the fact that in the series, even after Superman Reveals to Lois that he is in fact Clark Kent, Lois Lane refuses to believe that they are the same person.  The only explanation is that Superman does a “really good Clark impersonation.” As a result we find Superman repeatedly stating “I really am Clark.” Is he really? This tension is what makes Superman such a rich character, and not that he is some idealized version of our selves beyond all constraints.

The reason I have enjoyed the current New Krypton arc so much, despite its flaws, is that it deliberately played with this tension in ways that attempt to reflect modern anxieties.  At various points in Superman publishing’s history elements of his mythos, such as Super-Girl, Superboy, Legion of Superheroes, and Kandor, have been eliminated out of fear that is detracts from Superman’s uniqueness.  Running quite contrary to this traditional wisdom, New Krypton has suggested that perhaps Superman is the most unique (i.e. the embodiment of what is extraordinary in humanity itself) only when his world is populated by other Kryptonians.  On top of this the writers have begun to be tackled or suggested, a few of which are Superman uneasiness with the militarist nature of his Culture, his inablility to placate fears about rampant technology, his worry that he is complicit in sustaining a culture that is built on a permanent underclass.   My God, off the cuff I don’t think I can think of another current major comic franchise that is as ambitious with its sub-textual themes (and if you say Green Lantern and its Kübler-Ross/Captain Planet hybrid pseudo philosophy, I will throw my Absolute New Frontier at your head.)  It can be argued that these ideas have not always been addressed gracefully, sure, but I commend the authors, James Robinson, Greg Rucka and Sterling Gates (not a fan of Geoff Johns and his amazing Technicolor retconning machine) as storytellers for addressing them at all.

I am vehemently opposed to the idea that Comic Book writers are keepers of folklore. I think this inane idea is propagated more so at DC than Marvel because DC has these God-like mythic heroes. Regardless, I don’t think these characters should be treated as unchanging archetypes. The periodical nature of comic book allows them to be timely while constituting a longer thread that is classic. It should take advantage of this and, like all good stories, it should tell us something about ourselves.

This is why the absence of what I called “the lost generation” is such a catastrophe for comics, or at least superhero comics. I have no doubt that graphic literature will not only continue but excel, in some shape or form; manga, digital, web comics, graphic novels, or periodicals. The graphic narrative is an amazing medium and it will not be lost. But what is being lost is the relevancy of the Superhero genre. The comic book industry, which is the superhero genre, is stagnating because it is pandering to the nostalgic whims of a customer base which is now largely comprised of fans that started reading comic books during the 90s or earlier, at the expense of new and relevant stories. Bring back this 70’s character, bring back that costume, give them back their old origin, restore this quality to that character even though the last 100 issues have been about that character shedding that quality (looking at you Joey Q.)  What else explains DC publically stated decision to return it hero’s to a more iconic status (read silver age origins). Hal replaces Kyle, Barry replaces Wally, Ray ‘Snooze’ Palmer replaces Ryan Choi, white firestorm returns and relegates Jason Rusch to Professor Stein status, etc. I can’t believe that DC is so committed to the new Blue Beetle, which is one of DC’s most original new characters.

Here you can interject what about Dick Grayson as Batman? It’s a good interjection. In fact, DC fans have the good fortunes that Grant Morrison still has enough clout to tell good stories despite Geoff Johns lobotomization of the DC Universe.  But it is perhaps too little to late when an immensely elegant and moving story the likes of Final Crisis is derided and the incoherent, bland and at best mediocre Blackest Night is hailed as an achievement in superhero fiction. When the Tiny-Titan generation inherits the DCU proper they will find a literature that has lost complete touch with any ideas that resonate with the world they inhabit. A literature they will have not much use for.