|
Post by WildKnight on Jun 13, 2011 16:54:51 GMT -5
Deconstruction is when you KNOW the rules of a genre and break them. Watchman was a deconstruction of superhero comics becouse main heroes were homicidal, psychotic, cowardly and megalomaniac instead of, you know, the opposite (plus it didnt have a single villain, other then Ozzy). By that definition (which, for the record, is exactly what I said, just in much nicer terms), then yes, All Star Superman is absolutely Deconstruction. He violates several of the rules of the genre, and of the Superman mythos itself. At the end of the day, All Star Superman is an epic fail because it completely misses the point of Superman himself. Lex Luthor realizes he's wrong because he gains Superman's powers... suggesting that Superman is who he is not because of strong moral character or because of how he was raised or even how he chose to apply himself. It says that Superman was "good" because his powers allowed him to see the Universe in a certain way, and that anyone and everyone with similar perceptive abilities would somehow automatically subscribe to his worldview. What makes the Superman/Lex dichotomy work is that they DO both see the Universe in all of its infinite diversity and potential... and they both want to impose their own notion of what the future should be. Grant Morrison utterly missed that somehow (though he came close when he had Lex talking about how Superman was stifling human potential). The story had moments of greatness. It broke my heart when Superman was rushing to cure diseases so that he could leave those cures as his legacy to humanity (though it begs the question; why wasn't finding such cures his priority all along?). Seeing him spend those precious moments with Lois was amazing. But ultimately, it told the story of a Superman devoid of the genuine humanity that is the hallmark of all his best stories. It lacked any essential moral dilemma. Superman was dying. He had only to defeat a mad man one final time and then wander off into the sun. I actually DID really like DC One Million. Which is part of why I found this prelude to it to be so utterly disappointing (and not at all what was hinted at when they discussed when they talked about Superman leaving Earth in DC One Million)
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jun 13, 2011 17:53:45 GMT -5
Literary deconstruction, which is what you defined with your quote, is about the way language is, by nature, inaccurate and clumsy, owing to the many different interpretations and possible meanings of words and phrases. It's a very nitpicky level of analysis of writing and reading.
I agree with the idea that deconstruction, as it applies to tropes, means to deliberately avoid or subvert those tropes, usually (bot not always) bringing things towards a more "realistic" world.
Speaking out of ignorance here, having not read the comic, it sounds like you're being incredibly simplistic here. You're presuming that Luthor's epiphany was the exact same moral event that caused Superman to be "good". Isn't it fair to imagine that, whatever epiphany Luthor came to, it was deeply personal and individual?
And for that matter, isn't it an assumption that Lex instantly became as "good", as heroic, as merciful, as courageous, as just, as etc etc as Superman?
Maybe I had to be there?
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Jun 13, 2011 18:03:19 GMT -5
You're presuming that Luthor's epiphany was the exact same moral event that caused Superman to be "good". I'm reading the text literally. Lex asks Superman "is this how you see the world?" or something to that extent, and then goes on to babble about how wrong he was. He doesn't have to be AS good (etc etc) as Superman. The mere fact that seeing the world as Superman does somehow means automatically agreeing to Superman's basic worldview was pretty pathetic, IMO. It struck me as less an assumption of Superman's perceptive capability, and more an assumption of Superman's point of view... which are entirely different animals.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jun 13, 2011 18:17:18 GMT -5
I think I'd have to read the comic before weighing in any more than I have. It does seem like a really sappy way to end a story, having Lex come to an epiphany that easily. But even so, I'm not sure I could call that deconstruction - not with enough conviction to get upset about it. It just seems like cheesy writing to me.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Jun 13, 2011 18:36:55 GMT -5
I think I'd have to read the comic before weighing in any more than I have. It does seem like a really sappy way to end a story, having Lex come to an epiphany that easily. But even so, I'm not sure I could call that deconstruction - not with enough conviction to get upset about it. It just seems like cheesy writing to me. ~TWF I'm not calling it Deconstruction though. I'm referring to his over-the-top use of things like the Fortress of Solitude, Jimmy Olsen walking around in a dress, etc as Deconstruction. The Lex Luthor thing does, though, IMO, contribute to the overall problem of the story presenting Superman as lacking in the basic humanity that has been his hallmark since Crisis on Infinite Earths
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jun 13, 2011 22:40:18 GMT -5
Jimmy Olsen walking around in a dress? Wow, you may be on to something after all. I was not aware. lol
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Rushlock on Jun 13, 2011 22:53:56 GMT -5
And Batman Inc. will continue, a sign the work he's doing with that title isn't going to be immediately retconed and handwaved the hell out of existence completely [cf. his run on New X-Men...] If only I could handwave his X-Men...attempt from memory =P
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Jun 14, 2011 6:11:00 GMT -5
Jimmy Olsen walking around in a dress? Wow, you may be on to something after all. I was not aware. lol ~TWF Yeah, it's a pretty lame gag. He walks into the Planet office in a dress and someone says something to the effect of "were you undercover?" to which Jimmy replies "no, why do you ask?" (or something). It was a groan inducing moment, and I'm still not sure if Morrison was intending to imply that Jimmy is a cross-dresser who just now decided to reveal his proclivities to the world, or what, since it never comes up again.
|
|
|
Post by Jet on Jun 14, 2011 9:36:01 GMT -5
Its a continuity nod to Silver Age, where Jimmy got new superpowers or dressed as woman pretty much every third issue. Its called "shout out", a moment where a fan who knows the past could smile and think "hey, they know it was silly and arent afraid to show it".
To everyone else its a waste of time. The only bigger waste of time is discussing it.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Jun 14, 2011 9:48:07 GMT -5
Its a continuity nod to Silver Age, where Jimmy got new superpowers or dressed as woman pretty much every third issue. Its called "shout out", a moment where a fan who knows the past could smile and think "hey, they know it was silly and arent afraid to show it". To everyone else its a waste of time. The only bigger waste of time is discussing it. Except that it stopped being a shout out and started being an un-funny joke when Jimmy said he wasn't undercover. Even in the Silver Age stuff, there was always a REASON why Jimmy was involved in screwed up stuff. It didn't just happen in a vacuum. Also, the Silver Age doesn't need any "shout outs" in modern comics. It needs to be ignored for the sake of human sanity.
|
|
|
Post by Jet on Jun 14, 2011 18:19:03 GMT -5
I only saw the animated version, so call me crazy but I always thought he was, you know... sarcastic. He looked like he was going to say "Of course Im undercover, you !@#$% moron, why do you even need to ask?". Of course thats debatable.
|
|
|
Post by dorkknight23 on Jun 14, 2011 19:43:11 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree to the particulars here, but will agree in general that perhaps this is not something everybody will enjoy. But I liked it a lot, the book made me care about Superman in a way that I, frankly, usually don't.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Jun 14, 2011 21:02:20 GMT -5
I only saw the animated version, so call me crazy but I always thought he was, you know... sarcastic. He looked like he was going to say "Of course Im undercover, you !@#$% moron, why do you even need to ask?". Of course thats debatable. A silver age Jimmy Olsen is incapable of sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Jun 14, 2011 21:02:45 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree to the particulars here, but will agree in general that perhaps this is not something everybody will enjoy. But I liked it a lot, the book made me care about Superman in a way that I, frankly, usually don't. Which is odd, because it made me NOT care about Lex Luthor in the way that I usually do
|
|
|
Post by Hypester on Jun 14, 2011 21:18:05 GMT -5
Grant Morrison looks like Lex Luthor.
It doesn't seem to matter a whole lot, as one who isn't heavy into any given storyline at the moment, DC making a company-wide jumping on point, and writing with an eye for the masses doesn't bother me one bit. It should prove very interesting, imho.
The problem I have (other than some of these titles aren't meant to survive, so its like a comic book version of survivor), is that I don't see any marketing for it. Perhaps this is phase one of a plan to get these books to the masses and 'save the industry' or whatever, but if there's no phase two in shot order, it's just going to be the Ultimate Universe all over. Three Years from now, continuity will be just as jarring.
OR their new approach to storytelling includes telling procedurals instead of serials, with editorial mandates to keep the status quo. THAT would be interesting...
|
|