Sci-Ence! Justice Leak!

Linkblogging for 06/01/09

Posted in comics, linkblogging, politics, religion by Andrew Hickey on January 6, 2009

I’d hoped to do another proper post today, but exhaustion is getting the better of me (for some reason I didn’t sleep last night, and I’ve done a couple of longer-than-normal days at work this week). I also owe p(il)lo(c)k at least two comments and an email, which will have to wait until I’m coherent…

From the Grauniad – Vicar has ‘horrifying’ statue of crucifixion removed from church:

“We’re all about hope, encouragement and the joy of the Christian faith. We want to communicate good news, not bad news, so we need a more uplifting and inspiring symbol than execution on a cross.”

I’m sure I’ve heard that before

Amypoodle at the Mindless Ones has an absolutely astounding extrapolation of one panel from Batman #666, detailing the Joker of the future. Which reminds me, I must get back to my own thoughts on Batman – it’s been a little while again…

The great Rick Veitch has been posting drawings over at his blog. Here’s one of his dream comics (and I *must* write about those, too, at some point) involving Alan Moore, while here is Dave Sim’s cubist period.

The blogging platform Livejournal has just sacked half its staff. This is a shame, as LJ is in many ways the blogging platform/social network with the most possibilities, but it’s been consistently mismanaged for years – there’s a reason I’ve stopped using it, and rarely even look at my friends list any more (a shame as there are actually some great people on there, some of whom I’ve linked on my blogroll).

Kevin Church has an excerpt from ‘Marvels 3

And finally, there’s the Convention On Modern Liberty, which I would be promoting even were my mate Dave not organising the Manchester branch of the event (although watch out for the page if you’re on a slow machine – there’s a ton of embedded Youtube videos that slowed my old laptop down so much I had to drop to terminal mode to kill the browser). This looks like the biggest conference on human rights and liberty issues in the broadest sense for decades, bringing together every major group and publication from the liberal left and libertarian right. The main partners are NO2ID, Amnesty International, Liberal Conspiracy and Unlock Democracy, but everyone from the TUC to the sodding Countryside Alliance of all people is involved, by way of the Grauniad, the Fabian Society, Private Eye and the Campaign For An English Parliament. I may even go down to That London for this rather than go to the Manchester event – it looks like it could be a major, major event.

Linkblogging For 29/09/08

Posted in comics, linkblogging, politics by Andrew Hickey on September 29, 2008

Latest Big Finish A Week will be up tonight. I’m going to try to get more written this week than in the last couple of weeks, which have been busier than normal for me….

Liberal Conspiracy have a good article on why socialists should vote Lib Dem.

A Trout In The Milk has some thoughts on science fiction, ‘the singularity’ and techno-hubris.

Alan Moore explains again exactly why he hates the very idea of the Watchmen film, and why I for one won’t ever watch it.

Jog has an excellent-as-always review of Eddie Campbell’s The Amazing Remarkable Monsieur Leotard

And Cory Doctorow goes into great detail about Labour’s plans for ID cards and their awful treatment of immigrants. As someone married to an immigrant, this alone would be enough to make me vote Lib Dem rather than ever vote for these scumbags again, and everyone should support no2id. (I’m afraid I’m too much of an armchair supporter of them, but it’s one of the most important organisations in the UK today).

For He Is Like A Refiner’s Fire…

Posted in comics by Andrew Hickey on September 18, 2008

One of the problems of being a British comic blogger is that we get our comics a day later than the Americans. This can make it seem somewhat redundant to write about them. Once Jog, Marc Singer and a couple of others have written about All-Star Superman, what else can there be to say?

But I can’t let the very last issue of the best superhero comic series of all time go without talking about it. I’ve deliberately not read either of the reviews I mention above (though I know they exist – they showed up in my feed reader but I’ve saved them for later) so I can try to formulate my own thoughts. Don’t be surprised though if I say the same as them but less eloquently… I’m really just noting down a jumble of things as they come to me, here. I have to reread this in context with the rest of the series (and especially the perfect issue ten) and I’ll probably do a series of posts at some point examining it in detail.

It ends as it has to, of course – Superman becomes a God. We all knew he would. But he becomes a living idea – “My cells are converting to pure energy. Pure information.”

Thematically this makes sense – All-Star Superman has been as much about the idea of Superman as about the man himself – but it still packs a powerful punch. That splash page of Superman in the heart of the sun, coloured only in tones of gold, building an artificial heart for the sun, is just awe-inspiring.

And for someone like myself who is obsessed with seeing references to Alan Moore in Morrison’s work, it’s very reminiscent of the issue of Promethea printed entirely in gold. As always in Morrison’s recent work, All-Star Superman has at least at one level been an attempt at addressing Moore’s work. Morrison’s really in an unenviable position – he’s a truly great writer working in a very small medium which happens to have only one widely-acknowledged super-genius, who started just before him and to make matters worse has a huge overlap in interests and subject matter, who is clearly one of the great writers of all time but who just as clearly has very obvious flaws that Morrison himself doesn’t have. It’s amazing that his work contains as little commentary on Moore’s work as it does.

(For the record I think Moore is the better writer but Morrison is slightly more in tune with my personal aesthetic).

While Moore’s Supreme has been a very obvious structural influence on All-Star Superman, the main influence on this issue is Moore’s Superman work. Not Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow? (which Morrison underrates because of Superman crying and the plagiarism from Superfolks), though that gets a nod with the statue toward the end, but rather to For The Man Who Has Everything.

But while this is patterned after the earlier work, there are crucial differences. In particular, Superman chooses to return to the real world from the imagined perfect one (the look on his face when Jor-El mentions the word ‘surrender’ is priceless – I’ve gone on about Morrison here as elsewhere, but this comic could not have been done with anyone except Frank Quitely on art).

After having dealt with every other solar myth, it’s only appropriate that the last issue should contain the most explicit Jesus parallel (though again, the parallels are there with many other saviour-figures). Superman dies and goes to a perfect world where his father already is, chooses to go back to earth and save everyone, then ascends into the sky with a promise to one day return.

What’s wonderful is that in fitting the Superman story to these mythic archetypes Morrison and Quitely have taken elements from every version of Superman, without prejudice, and incorporated them into a larger framework. While this issue clearly references Moore’s work, the scene on ‘Krypton’ is also reminiscent of the Death of Superman storyline from the 1990s (where Pa Kent ‘died’ temporarily to bring Superman back to life). There’s even a nod to the godawful concept of ‘President Luthor’ from a few years ago. As a whole, All-Star Superman is the pure version of the Superman myth, condensed and refined, with all the impurities taken away (much like Superman himself at the end of the story). Morrison and Quitely have passed the concept of Superman through a refiner’s fire, and this is the quintessential Superman story.

If the human race survives long enough, and if Superman finally passes out of corporate control and becomes the folk hero he needs to be, along with King Arthur and Robin Hood and the others, this is the form his story would take after centuries of retelling and refinement. I really can’t imagine a more perfect superhero story than this series has been.

Random favourite bits from the issue (every panel is a favourite bit…)
Neoconlab – is that a very sly political dig, or just a coincidence?
“Surrender?”
“Turn and face down evil one last time” just before we turn the page to see Luthor
“Come on Clark, you can do it buddy!” turning Steve Lombard from a parody to a real, decent person in one panel
“Nice, ah, disguise, Superman”
“I should be writing these…”
“And we’re all we’ve got”
That very last splash page.

And I also love that this sets up DC One Million without ever explicitly linking the two.

I can’t say enough good about this comic, or this series. I’m going to try to do a retrospective of the whole series soon, but if there’s anyone among you who haven’t read this series yet, go out and get every issue *now*. This is a series with big ideas and a bigger heart. It’s a love letter to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and Wayne Boring and Cary Bates and Curt Swan and Elliot S! Maggin and Mort Weisinger and even to Alan Moore, and even to the tenth-rate hacks who’ve mishandled Superman so much in the last decade or two. And to the power of ideas, and to the fact that an idea can change the world.

Look! Up in the sky…

Promethea volume 5

Posted in comics by Andrew Hickey on August 4, 2008

The following post may be a bit patchy – I started it several days ago and am only getting round to finishing it now, and I’m not entirely coherent today. However, since I promised my adoring public, here you go.

This week was an extraordinarily light week for comics. Given that my local comic shop still didn’t have Glamourpuss, and also hadn’t received Comic Book Comics, I was left with only three to buy, all of them the sort of competent superhero comic that’s enjoyable enough but not really worth discussing. So I thought instead that I’d talk about Promethea.

Now, Alan Moore has a reputation as being something of a stern formalist, writing comics that are curiously unemotional even as they redefine genres, create entire new ones, and open up whole new areas for the medium. And in many ways this is an entirely valid criticism. Lost Girls, for example, is an extraordinary achievement, one of the greatest works of art ever created in the comic medium, a masterpiece in every sense of the word. It’s also one of the least erotic things I’ve ever read – the sex in the comic seeming mostly to be a matter of inserting tab A into slot B. It succeeds as a work of art even as it fails in its supposed intent of arousal. (At least for me – your mileage may well vary).

Moore at times seems to view humanity as a slightly different species, whose behaviours can be documented, and predicted to an extent, but never truly understood. I suspect it’s no accident that so much of Moore’s successful work, especially the early work, features non-human characters who are distanced from humanity and don’t really understand it (Swamp Thing and Doctor Manhattan spring to mind, but even Moore’s Superman is definitely alien). This attitude seems to come across to an extent in some of his interviews – where a lot of people read some of his more controversial comments as ‘cranky’, some of them read to me as sincere bewilderment. He sounds like he simply doesn’t understand why a comic company would lie to him, or would try to cheat him out of a relatively small amount of money, when they’d make more by just being fair with him.

But that doesn’t mean Moore’s work is inhuman. At its best there is a kind of compassion there – both generalised and aimed at the whole of humanity, and specifically aimed at individuals – that can be quite heartbreaking. I very rarely cry at comics – I did at Jaka’s Story but that’s about it – but three of Moore’s works have moved me to tears.

One was A Disease Of Language, Eddie Campbell’s masterful adaptation of a couple of Moore’s spoken-word pieces. Another, rather embarrassingly, was Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow?, specifically the line ‘you grew up beautiful Kara’.

The third was the final volume of Promethea. It’s always a different point, but that story always brings me out in tears at some point.

Promethea has a very bad reputation amongst comics fans, and while I think it’s undeserved, I do understand why. For those who haven’t read it, Promethea starts out as a straightforward superhero comic, bearing something like the same resemblance to Wonder Woman as Tom Strong does to Superman, and it stays more or less like this for the first twelve issues. Then, with the twelfth issue, it takes a turn into completely unfamiliar territory for superhero comics, spending the next twelve issues essentially teaching Moore’s interpretation of the Kaballah.

These issues have a deserved reputation for being didactic, and would be of little or no interest for anyone who doesn’t have an implicit interest in Moore’s thought processes or in ‘magick’, but for those like myself who are as interested in the technique of comics, or in the ideas presented, as in the narrative, this middle period of Promethea has some great rewards. Whenever Moore is interviewed about Promethea, he always talks in a jokingly smug way about how clever some of it is – and it is, enormously. Issue twelve, the one where the casual fans jumped off, is an astonishing display of structural virtuosity. On each page there is a tarot card, redesigned by penciller J.H. Williams III to Moore’s specifications (so The Aeon shows ‘Harpocrates, the silent god’ as Harpo Marx, with his horn going ‘ankh, ankh’) – all the major arcana are there, one for each of the comic’s twenty-two pages. Arranged in order, Moore has them tell the story of the universe up to this point (rather skimming over the first few billion years to concentrate on human civilisation, but still), as narrated in rhyming couplets written in near-perfect iambic pentameter. At the bottom of each page (the pages are arranged so they read as a frieze) is a series of images of the life of the same person – Aleister Crowley – from conception through to death. These life stages are portrayed as parallel to the tarot cards and the history.

Crowley is telling a joke – one that was in fact a favourite of Crowley’s – spread over these pages, and the joke is phrased in such a way that it parallels rather obliquely what’s being said in the main narration, while still sounding natural. And on top of this, each page has a perfect anagram of ‘Promethea’, also describing some aspect of what’s being shown on the page (Death is ‘O Reap Them’, the Aeon ‘Meet Harpo’, the Lovers ‘Me Atop Her’).

And that’s *one issue*. While Moore himself isn’t always this clever, there’s a reason most of the trades credit five people on the front (and should really credit six – given the amount of work he put in not only on the lettering, but on the design of the comic, I think it’s an absolute disgrace that Todd Klein isn’t credited at east as prominently as the rest).

The series moves further and further from traditional narrative as the story progresses, and naturally has to rely more on the visual aspects. Luckily, J. H. Williams, the penciller and occasional painter, is the single best artist working in comics today, having the visual imagination and layout sense of a Frank Quitely, an instantly recognisable style that is similar enough to traditional Neal Adams school ‘realistic’ superhero art to ground the art in the familliar, but with a line and sense of space that seems to my untrained eye to owe as much to deco and Beardsley as to Jack Kirby, and a huge stylistic range when working outside his normal subject-matter. I’m not an especially visually-oriented person, but Williams is one of a very small number of artists whose work I’ll buy no matter the writer.

The others credited (inker Mick Gray, colourist Jeromy Cox and digital artist/photographer Jose Villarubia), also have to do work above and beyond the call of duty, as the formal limitations required by the scripts (for example an entire issue printed in only gold ink) become springboards for the imagination in a way that you never see normally in comics. On a purely formal level, these issues are astonishing – up there with the best of Eisner or Sim. Aesthetically, I can look at them for hours just marvelling at the beauty of the art.

But I can quite see why people dropped the comic in droves. For much of those twelve issues there’s little or no actual narrative, and what there is moves excruciatingly slowly at times even in the trades, let alone in the often-late single issues. For someone who’d started reading the comic because it looked a little like Wonder Woman, I could see the appeal fading fast.

And it’s a real shame, because in the final volume everything comes together in the most extraordinary manner, and while the artistic team do their usual stellar work, the credit for this must go to Moore, who in this last volume does some of the best work of his career.

A lot of the final volume is a kind of metafictional game – including a scene where a character is pulled out of the page into a higher-dimensional reality that’s very similar to a lot of Grant Morrison’s stuff – and Moore seems to be putting all the ‘cleverness’ of which he’s so justly proud into seeing just how hard he can push at the fourth wall. From introducing the cartoony characters from Tomorrow Stories (including some hilarious moments with Jack B Quick – “Great darn! So this is the big city… and I guess you folk are real crack dealers and prostitutes!” “I shall wait until my doomsday device has reached critical mass… and then use a big red-painted handle to throw it into reverse!”) who shouldn’t fit into the very different world of Promethea, to having Promethea directly address the reader, to having characters make comments with meta-fictional meanings (“We’re nearly there, the big thirty-two, the grand finale”) but which make sense within the world of the comic. He does this while also throwing new information at us from all directions – the superhero storyline that was in the background also comes to the foreground, in an ‘everything you know is wrong’ kind of way that not only captures the superhero-comics zeitgeist perfectly (see the post by Botswana Beast at Mindless Ones linked below), but also induces the reader to sympathise at least a little with The Painted Doll (the comic’s version of the Joker).

Moore uses every trick in the book, and some that aren’t in any book, to break down the wall between the characters and the reader (the art team play a big part in this too, mixing traditional comic line art, painting, photography, collage and digitally created images to create a sense of the real world and the comic world intermingling, but at this point it’s Moore who’s being truly impressive again). But he does this in order to produce an emotional, rather than an intellectual, effect on the reader, and at some point in the story I always end up overwhelmed after being battered by all sides, and end up in tears.

I remember the first time this happened, when I read it for the first time. The storyline in the last volume of Promethea is essentially a newage/gnostic take on the apocalypse, something like the ‘eschaton’ of Illuminatus!

In this story, people’s perceptions change and time itself eventually breaks down into a singularity, much like in any number of similar stories (the Invisibles, pretty much everything Robert Anton Wilson ever wrote, that kind of thing). But when I read those other stories, I intellectually understood ‘OK, time is playing up’, but it makes no emotional impact on me.

But in one panel, Moore hit me with what that feeling would really be like:
“And with one coalition soldier killed every day since the war’s end nearly two months ago…”
“The war ended? Wasn’t it just yesterday the fighting started? S-say, what month is this, anyway?” (the original comic was published in 2003).

By linking this new-age/soft-SF idea with the real experience we’ve all had of time running away from us (and I got a feeling of this again when I realised just now that I first read this comic when I moved into my current address, and that that was two years ago now) Moore managed to get to me in a very real way. He does something similar on the same page for those who’ve been reading the issues as they came out, having a newscaster refer to events from a previous issue – ” wait a minute, earlier today? Wasn’t that in March or something?”

It takes a truly audacious writer to work the comic’s publishing schedule *into the story* and manage to make it have emotional impact. Promethea, in its middle sections, is a difficult work, and ripely deserves the friendly poke at it that Grant Morrison took with his Zatanna miniseries (which Mick Gray inked, not long after finishing work on Promethea), but overall it’s one of Moore’s most satisfying works, and even at its most difficult it’s a gorgeous piece of work. It’s just a shame its reputation is just ‘the one where Moore lectures at the reader about Kaballah until everyone falls asleep”.

Adaptation and algorithmic complexity

Posted in comics, films by Andrew Hickey on July 22, 2008

Like everyone else who writes about comics, or even has ever heard the word comic in their life, I am obliged by law to have an opinion on the upcoming film version of Watchmen.

(I’m not even going to consider the ‘motion comics’ thing that just came out. This is partly because I couldn’t access it even if I wanted to – the combination of not being available in the country where I live and not being available for the operating system I run stops that – but also because it was a bad idea back in the late 60s when they did it with Jack Kirby Captain America comics, and doing it to Watchmen is such a horrible idea that attacking it seems both too easy and rather cruel, like kicking a puppy that’s lost its legs).

But the film version is interesting, because it appears to be an illustration of a hypothesis I’ve had for a while now – that the quality of an adaptation is a function of the quality of the source material and the fidelity of the adaptation to it. The function in question being an inverse one. The worse the source material, and the less faithful the adaptation, the better the result.

That’s not exactly true, but it’s a surprisingly good approximation, and the reason why is fairly obvious.

Imagine you’re a film director, and you’ve been asked to adapt a book or comic or whatever for the cinema. We’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, as well, and assume that you actually intend to make a good film – that your motivations are primarily artistic, rather than the real motive of most makers of ‘comic book movies’ (wanting to be able to build a house entirely out of hundred dollar bills). We’ll also forget that you’re working in an industry that has an almost magical ability to carefully fillet out every trace of an idea from a film – the kind of industry where it was considered a good idea to make V For Vendetta but leave out the stuff about anarchy. How would you approach it?

There are roughly two approaches you can take. Let’s call them the babelfish and the Christopher Nolan.

The babelfish approach is – you take what’s on the page, and you put it on the screen. If you have to make cuts to fit it into three hours, cut the boring bits, but basically just put the source material on the screen. From the interviews I’ve read, from the photos I’ve seen, that’s what Zak Snyder trying to do with Watchmen. The director acts like a translating machine.

Christopher Nolan, on the other hand, is an extremely intelligent filmmaker, and he understands that the process of adaptation is one that must change the source material in fundamental ways. A film is not a novel or a comic, and The Prestige is not the same as the novel it’s based on, and Batman Begins has only a passing resemblance to Batman Year One (I’ve not seen The Dark Knight yet, but I imagine this applies there, too.

An intelligent adapter – whether Nolan, or Milos Forman adapting One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest or Amadeus, or whoever – will essentially ask “How do I create the same effect as the source material, given the different strengths and weaknesses of the medium?” (or, if the source material is terrible, “How do I create the effect that the creator of the source material intended?”)

The approach taken by most of them seems to be to find what one might call the core of the material – the reason it works as it does. In the case of The Prestige this might be the relationship between the two magicians, in the case of Batman it’s a bloke dressing up in a bat costume and punching people.

You’d probably go into more detail than that, but you’d be looking at something like “Batman is a billionaire who saw his parents murdered as a child, and as a result trained his mind and body to perfection and devoted all his considerable resources to fighting crime. He does this by dressing up as a bat and, with the aid of gadgets, fighting grotesque villains who are mostly in some way warped reflections of himself, in a city that’s part Chicago, part New York, and part Gothic nightmare.”

You then look through the source material for those elements – and only those elements – that reinforce that core in some way. You then construct a new story around those elements. New characters can be created, old ones repurposed or merged, all in the service of that core. This way you end up with a film that is true to the spirit ( not The Spirit – a whole other rant) of the original.

It would in fact have been more than possible to do this with V For Vendetta- The core there is simple – “there’s a gun to your head, and you have to choose absolute anarchy or fascism. Which do you choose?” The fact that the film-makers ignored that core doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been done.

But this technique can only take you so far. There’s an idea in mathematics called algorithmic complexity. The idea is that a string (a number, say, or a sentence) contains only as much information as the shortest possible computer program that could produce it as its output. For example the number 123123123123123123123123… contains only the information loop(print’123′). On the other hand the shortest computer program that could produce Finnegans Wake would consist of the entire text of the book – you couldn’t compress it at all and still recreate it.

By analogy we can talk about a conceptual complexity – what is the ‘core’ of Watchmen ? What is it ‘about’? Is it about its own formal innovations (I could make a good case that the Giffen/DeMatteis Justice League is far closer to Watchmen than any of the grimungritty ‘serious’ stories of the same time)? Is it about power and responsibility? Is it about the limits of moral absolutism? The Cold War? What superheroes would ‘really’ be like? The way people’s lives are constantly affected by factors they don’t understand? The importance of love? The death of both the 50s ‘American Dream’ and the 60s counterculture and their replacement with Reaganism? The importance of the individual? How looking again at seemingly trivial childhood memories can reveal hidden depths? How even the most evil people can have moments of kindness, while the most decent are capable of horrors?

It’s about all those things and more. The only way you can sum up Watchmen is to actually hand someone the comic itself. In fact, arguably, you couldn’t do even that without handing them a bunch of other comics, a handful of newspapers from 1985 or 86, and a few decent books on mid-20th century history, to provide context… what Watchmen is about, fundamentally, is itself. Remove any of the elements – the page layouts, the pirate story, the essay about owls, the background story about Hooded Justice – and you have something significantly lesser than Watchmen, in a way very different from removing the framing story from The Prestige, which turned a mediocre book into an excellent film.

In particular, what Watchmen isn’t about is its plot, in a linear this-happens-then-this-happens-then-the-surprise-twist manner. The ‘A’ plot in fact is one of the weaker elements – taken out of the context of the rest of the comic it’s just another rip-roaring superhero yarn. Snyder’s film looks like it will bear the same resemblance to the comic as a transcription of the lyrics to Tutti Frutti would have to Little Richard’s primal yelling – it’ll be entirely accurate (apart from those terrible costumes) but nobody looking at it will have a clue what the fuss was all about.

I don’t consider Watchmen an Untouchable Classic – it’s not even Moore’s best work, let alone the Greatest Comic Ever as many would claim. But it’s unfilmable in a way many other works – even better works – simply aren’t, because it is so specifically itself. You might as well try to stage the Mona Lisa as a play, or novelise Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony.

Yesterday’s Linkblogging

Posted in comics, linkblogging, politics by Andrew Hickey on July 22, 2008

I’ll be posting about adaptations tonight, unless something more interesting to write about comes along, but in the meantime a few links. These were meant to go up last night, but I spent my blogging time waiting on the phone for my ISP as my net connection was down, then as soon as I got throgh to a human being the connection came back up.

Still, I was very glad when on the phone that my ISP/phone company (TalkTalk) has decided to get rid of their hold music (a muzaky version of Something In The Air by Thunderclap Newman), and replace it with poetry reading by the great Roger McGough. This made being on hold much less unpleasant.

Anyway, links:

Grant Morrison on Final Crisis 2. I really don’t understand the negative reactions to FC – it’s one of the best things I’ve read in recent years.

LONG Alan Moore interview – Not much here that’s news – the interview’s from a few years ago – but the interviewer actually asks about writing techniques and so on rather than just why he doesn’t like $film-based-on-his-work.

FICO, FICO un day. Fred Clark talks about the evils of credit scoring.

Liberal Conspiracy on the Green Party. I disagree with the idea that Lib Dem activists will be deserting the party en masse for the Greens – the party base has *always* been more progressive than the leadership, and despite the leadership being Orange Bookers they’re still the best option for real change.

Brad Hicks on why Phil Gramm is a bad scientist.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers