In which the Blogger interrupts his discussion of the canon with a look at an entirely contemptible sequence of rape-porn panels in Kick Ass 2, part 11:
I wonder if there's ever been a creator associated with the
mainstream of the super-person comic-book who's worked as hard as Mark
Millar has in order to be indivisibly associated with the leitmotiv of gratuitous sexual
violence? He started off his career with the anal rape of a priest in Saviour back in 1990, which all seemed rather punk rock and
precocious for a 19 year-old in the context of the story and the age. And now here
we are, more than twenty years later, and he and John Romita Jr are
showing us the newly-christened - oh, yes! - "Motherfucker" beating
up a terrified teenage girl before unzipping his super-pants and
declaring that " ... it's time to see what evil dick tastes like."
He's
already shot her parents in the head. He's got his masked, gun-toting gangbangers lined up
behind him. And look, he's taking his cock out and he's making a joke about it
too!!!!!
Now, that's entertainment.
No,
I can't do this anymore. I really can't. There's just no defending Millar anymore. Like some perpetually willful
thirteen year old egomaniac who simply won't stop trying to piss people
off in order to draw attention to himself, Millar just can't seem to
imagine why he wouldn't present the world with such a
morally-dessicated, imaginatively-bankrupt scene. For it's not just that
it's a thoroughly unpleasant business that's he and Mr Romita Jr are waving around for the entertainment of their
readers, although that's the overwhelming majority of the objection here. But it's also all so lovingly, prosaically and banally
done, and yet, despite all that fetishistic attention paid to the rites of rape-porn, the plot's not advanced in this slightest. Well done, all you splendid gentlemen and women involved! Well done Clint Entertainment! Well done Marvel Comics and Titan Books too! Why not reduce the
representation of the victim of this sexual assault to a terrified, silent, shivering object
while presenting the whole scene from the perspective of ... god help me
... Motherfucker and the gaze of his minions? After all, there's those ever-tempting thirty pieces of silver clinking away in the background for everybody involved, isn't there?
Shall we attempt to raise the will to try and imagine
what any stray apologist might spit at me by way of a defense of "the
Boss" and his work here? Perhaps the young adolescent victim of the scene will turn the tables on her attackers in the
next episode now that we've been encouraged to linger on those hackneyed
and indefensible panels of panic, dread and psychopathic sexuality?
(She doesn't, by the way.) Perhaps Motherfucker - awe-some - will only ever wave his super-villainous genitals in front of
her before they're separated from him, which will, of course, be funny, as such things supposedly are in some comicbooks, rather than
traumatic, as is inevitably the case out here in the real world. Perhaps
what we're being shown is a smartly-framed insight into the pack-male
mentality, reduced by the absence of both conventional social restraints
and any intervening officers of the law to a rape-gang default setting? Perhaps
it's just "funny", or "exciting", or perhaps Millar sees his work as being two
stiff fingers up to those politically correct, self-righteous Whitehouses who
can't see that he's only having a little bit of fun at their expense?
Perhaps this is a satire of the superhero genre, and one which, some half-a-decade and more after Doctor Light's outing as a rapist in Identity Crisis, is intended to helpfully reveal the true scale of super-villain sexual atrocities? Or perhaps
what we're watching is comic-book realism? Gosh. What would happen if
super-people existed in the real world? Faced with such an awe-some
concept, it's sure-ly Mr Millar's responsibility to create an entirely
implausible and pornographically-toxic narrative while cloaking it in the spurious
justification of comics-documentary verisimilitude. For he isn't actually writing this story,
you see, or so some of his defenders would seem to have almost convinced themselves. He's not imagining it, he's not choosing every moment that you
see on the page. No. He's channeling it. What would happen if
New York City was invaded by an army of super-villains, for we should be told! The sexual assault of Katie is nothing, it seems, but legitimate literary speculation based on an absolutely compelling premise.. And, self-evidently, it seems that such super-villains would set about raping helpless teenage girls, and we'd have to watch it too. A warning, it seems, from the
pulpit of the perpetually publicly virtuous Mr Millar, adding this necessary social warning to his charity auctions and his other press-friendly good works in the community. Bad people rape women. Bad people in costumes do it in such a terrible way that we need to really linger on the evil of it all. Got it?
And I'll be willing to bet that all this suffering leads to a great vengeance-fueled blockbuster of a finale for Kick-Ass II, with Hit Girl playing such a prominent role that non-one could possibly suggest that Messrs Millar and Romita Jr were in any way playing for the side not typically associated with the angels.
But then, given that super-villains never will exist - oh, no! - then Millar might as well have discussed the "what-if" of, for example, an alien invasion of sentient five-foot tall Toblerones driven to sodomise the under-fives, or even - if you can believe this - a bomb that can be irremovably wired into the womb of a pregnant woman. You know, entirely cretinous, utterly irresponsible, attention-seeking wankerisms.
Who knows? Maybe Millar's hoping Clint
will benefit from the publicity which a little scandal might kick its
way. All publicity is good publicity, or so some Barnums might attempt to convince us. But men-children who constantly cry rape eventually end up in the
same situation as the tiresome little brat in the fairy story who cried wolf. In the
end, no-one cares too much about them anymore, or at least, they don't unless the
rape-fixated creator manages to identify a demographic who just can't see what
the harm in misogyny, sexual violence, crap storytelling, and plain-and-simple stupidity might be.
In which case, the boy who cried 'rape' ends up feted, stinking rich and profiled by the worthy on The Late Review.
Well,
you won, Mr Millar, didn't you? I do hope this sequence of panels will be useful to you
the next time you take up your position as a senior member of your
church or as a media commentator on Scottish political affairs. After all, given that you so regularly discuss the worthiness of your public concerns in the press, it seems only fair to point out that there's the chance here of a contradiction between what one Mr Millar says and does and what the comics professional himself gets up to when basically only the fanboys are watching. Or perhaps it is that
this scene in Kick-Ass II is intended to serve as a distillation of your politically-minded worries matched with your writerly genius where some of today's most
pressing social problems are concerned. Obviously, you could present these panels proudly in any schoolhall or seminary room, and use them to help everyone who's there come to grips with some of the day's most atrocious and appallingly commonplace acts of exploitation and oppression. Why, yes, Mr Miller, thank you; men can be sexual beasts, it seems, and women can find themselves being terrified, beaten and violated, it appears, and men can make jokes
about it while forcing themselves on their victims too. If there are costumes involved, why, it's even worse. Well, whoever would've guessed it, and whoever would've understood the matter if it hadn't all been turned in a comic strip for our soul-saving edification?
For this
has obviously been a public information comic-book! If these super-villains were real,
they might do just about anything terrible which Mr Millar can raise the energy to imagine. And look! What
he imagined was this, and Mr Romita Jr came along to help him get the details right too.
No insight. No imagination. No compassion. No cleverness. No heart. No moral purpose that isn't drowned out by its stupidity and callousness and soulless triviality.
But, most certainly, big fucking bucks.
Strangely
enough, and fully accepting how joy-killing and reactionary a view this may seem to be, I can't
even start to convince myself that violating utterly defenceless young women is so exciting and
informative and funny that we need to see it at all, let alone in such absolutely vivid,
by-the-numbers, story-slowing, morality-defeating, detail. Yet apparently we do.
You pays your money, you get to enjoy the "evil dick" scene!
Oh, well. Keep
standing up for the rights of the individual to free expression, traditional morality, and cutting-edge humour, Mr Millar, as well as continuing
your campaign against social injustice everywhere you can. As for me, and not
that anybody will give two hoots, but I'm out of here. Life's just too short to
care, although I really, really did want to.
In fact -
whisper it - I was even something of a considerable fan, and not so long ago either, always hoping
that all that talent and all those on-occasion clearly visible good
intentions would triumph over the arse-to-the-world, look-at-me-children
snakesoil salesman act. For it seemed to me that the Mark Millar who wrote 1985, that Fantastic Four run and the first Kick Ass was a creator who was becoming skilled at stirring up teacup-storms while grounding his work in unimpeachably moral foundations. Informing the first Kick Ass with recollections of Mr Millar's own childhood, for example, helped to create a comic which was as fundamentally touching as it was hi-octane entertaining. Indeed, it was impossible not to associate Dave Lizewski with Mark Millar himself at certain key and tragic moments in the text, and to wonder whether this was the moment at which the writer finally nailed how to entertain without regressing into a crass lack of concern for anyone's interests beyond his own.
But, straw meet camel's back. Camel's back, meet Clint # 11 ....
Enough.
(No. Let's not.)
.









You do know that by making this blog post you'll just help get Millar more readers, right?
ReplyDeletenot me sir i vote with my wallet unlike many other sheep out there but yea u have a point. and on another note i dont mind if rape is in comics as long as its treated with the severity it the subject demands and this fails to do that and i find it despicable. its a shame because the first volume of kickass showed such promise. then millar pulls this it seems clear to me now that many writers in the comic industry (especially those working for the big 2) are a bunch of Juvenal perverted hacks and i will not by there trash
DeleteI think it would be interesting if Katie had been channeled from the real world. I doubt very many real world people faced with the violent deaths of their parents, sprayed with their blood and tackled from behind by a murderous hooligan with who-know-what on his mind could string together anything as coherent as: "What are you TALKING about? I don't even KNOW Kick-Ass!" Comics!
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous:- Yes, I know, and I do hope that a few people might pick up the comic. My opinion's only my opinion, and I think that it's a comic that's well worth the thinking about.
ReplyDeleteIt's all very depressing, isn't it? There seems to be an almost schizophrenic split between the writer of American Jesus and 1985, and the writer of Nemesis and Kick Ass 2.
ReplyDeleteI did give Clint a chance, Godawful Frankie Boyle strip and all, but gave up after American Jesus and Turf ended. Don't think I'll be going back on this strength of this gratuitous piece of crap...
Hi Michael:- I think the problem is that Katie doesn't exist as a character at that moment, and so she can't be expected to behave as anything approaching a human might. She's a plot device, a victim, a young women to be beaten up and then abused.
ReplyDeleteIt's not surprising that she's so unconvincing, though it is a shame. There's a lot that might have been done with that scenario, if MM had cared to play - and to do so responsibily - with those conventions rather than do as he did ...
Hello cerebus660:- You're right about there being at the very least several Mark Millars. And I find that a writer who's capable of maintaining different styles with different types of content to be an admirable craftsman. My concerns are the ethical ones, an unfashionable business I admit, and a worrying carelessness in a great deal of MM's recent work. KA2 is clunky and sentimental, while the later Marvel work was simply slapdash compared to MM working at his height.
ReplyDeleteI really have a great deal of admiration, as I believe you have, for a fair number of MM's scripts. But Clint ... I realise that it's supposed to be being aimed at a far younger demographic than I can aspire to, but I've never understood why some creators think that appealling to such an audience involves being so insultingly obvious. The more demanding the classroom in which I used to find myself, and the more difficult and challenging a group of young blokes that I used to find myself before, the smarter I had to be. If I'd've tried to aim at a lowest common denominator, I'd've been treated with contempt ....
And if I was going to try to be funny, I knew that I was going to have to be really funny or I'd better not try ...
When the Kick-Ass movie came out, I was surprised to find out how the filmmakers had produced a superior story to the original series.
ReplyDeleteTo accomplish this they removed much of the cynicism from Millar's script while adding some heart. For me, this was the biggest indication that something was wrong with his writing instincts.
This may be parroting what you've already pointed out, but Millar is a talented writer who has chosen to explore darker themes in many of his stories for no other reason than to appear edgy. He's not alone in doing this, but he's become it's most prominent practitioner. He's taken the worst practices of Frank Miller and run with them.
Hello Admin:- My feeling was that there was a two-way street where the adaption was concerned. I think you're right that there was a less cynical and more sunny edge to the movie. But in having Kick Ass get the girl, for example, the film slipped for me into some dodgy ethical waters, as did it because of the divergent path the film took with Hit Girl's father. On the whole, I preferred the comic, but that doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the movie! In truth, I think the two of them work together well, throwing light one against the other.
ReplyDelete" .. Millar is a talented writer who has chosen to explore darker themes in many of his stories for no other reason than to appear edgy."
I can only agree with what you're saying. Breaking taboos for the sake of making noise and pissing off the civilians for its own sake is rarely a good idea, to say the least ...
No, he’s not alone in this, is he? And yet he’s a fine writer and at times he shows that he’s a great deal to say that’s worth paying attention. Why he should want to disappear into the pack of lesser-achievers quite escapes me ...
I will always defend Millar's Swamp Thing, which is a wonderful and horrifying comic book. I used to be a big Millar fan, until I read Wanted #6. The ending sucked, but I also felt it showed such contempt for the audience who made him a star that I never felt the need to read any of his books ever again. It seems that Millar really wants to be famous outside of comics, and the fact that he's really not bothers him immensely. On the very few occasions I've read a Millar comic since Wanted #6 (ones I haven't actually paid money for), it seems I've made the absolute correct decision. What happened to that guy who wrote Superman Adventures?
ReplyDeleteIn John Wagner's America II, there's a brutal sexual assault on the stricken Bennett Beeny (and there's one during Origins as well during the Atom War). It's one of the more horrible such scenes I can remember reading in a comic but I don't recall anyone criticising Wagner for it, despite this scene doing a cutaway from the "evil dick" and that scene (and Origins) not.
ReplyDeleteThe difference seems to be Wagner rarely does things like that; there's not a pattern to it. We don't have a "oh not again, John" response. We can argue there's more of a point to it when it happens, and crucially in America II the focus is on Beeny and his plot, it's not about someone else's plot being driven. And it's certainly not done to show us how eeeevil the villain is.
In this case... none of that really applies. About the only similarity is a Judge makes a snappy one-liner when he intervenes, a sign of callousness towards the citizens he's meant to be helping.
- Charles RB
Good post.
ReplyDeleteFrom the 'Respectfully, we did warn you about this before' dept.
(http://mindlessones.com/2011/09/24/great-moments-in-bastardry-kill-em-all/)
Hello Greg:- That Swamp Thing runs contains several single issue comics which I'd recommend to anybody; the River Run issue with Mr Chris Weston set in a alt-Nazi earth & the Chester-as-a-Nazi story with - wonderfully - Curt Swan aren't just part of the run for which you quite rightfully express fondness, but classics of a sort in their own right too. And the Chester issue has always been one which I've thought of when MM decides to unleash yet another bout of playground insensitivity. (And I'm being mild there with how I express things there... )
ReplyDelete'Wanted' does indeed have an ending which is inexcusable. The truth is that MM's intent was torpedoed by his lack of structural nous. We can all see that he's trying to play the outrage card while presenting a character who was never nurtured or loved; it shouldn't be a problem that he opts for being a monster, and it shouldn't read like a thumbs up for a life of crime and far worse, because we ought to see that it's society that's to blame. (It's a fair cop, but society IS to blame.) But MM looses control of his material and can't resist the attention-seeking, it's-cool-to-make-waves moments, meaning that the book just ends up feeling like the very thing that I think he hoped to avoid. Still, hundreds of thousands of graphic novels, a hollywood movie and perhaps even a second too; well, what could the harm ( :
"What happened to that guy who wrote Superman Adventures?"
Indeed. Indeed. It's a sad business, and there's a considerable talent going at least to considerable part to waste in all that hype and arm-waving. More tragic than that is the likes of the rape scene above ...
Hello Charles:- "The difference seems to be Wagner rarely does things like that; there's not a pattern to it. We don't have a "oh not again, John" response. We can argue there's more of a point to it when it happens, and crucially in America II the focus is on Beeny and his plot, it's not about someone else's plot being driven. And it's certainly not done to show us how eeeevil the villain is."
ReplyDeleteYes, you identify two absolutely key issues. First, the abuse and assault can only be justified if it's there to establish a clear moral purpose. Second, it simply shouldn't follow the established rape-porn conventions, and certainly not in the by-the-numbers way as the above does. To suggest that issues of sexual violence shouldn't be attended to in comics would be an insane business. To suggest that creators have responsibilities beyond that of the least pleasant sort of entertainment is not to cry for censorship. But it is to wish for a greater measure of common decency and imagination on the part of those who create the likes of the above.
Perhaps Katie's fate will take on a different dimension in KA2 when it's all collected. That's as may be. But when creator's work gets printed in distinct and separate chapters, it has to be judged in such a way. Because that's how it'll be read.
Hello bobsy:- Thank you.
ReplyDeleteBut how I managed to miss that post over at your place, I don't know. Still, always good to know the details of MM's liberal attitudes to law-enforcement ) : Any readers killing a second down here in the comments would surely find the estimable bobsy's link worth the visiting;
http://mindlessones.com/2011/09/24/great-moments-in-bastardry-kill-em-all/
How depressing, I still hold his Ultimate X-Men run as one of the most admirably moral superhero comics I've read. (Actually trying to make the world a better place? Yes please.) Somewhere along the line he cracked the formula for "shocking" moments, underdeveloped cool images and splash pages. Bah.
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to the Mark Millar book you were writing?
Hello Mark:- I'm with you re: the Ultimate X-Man, and there's a whole range of comics of his which I admire, to a greater or lesser degree. But the hardening up of his storytelling techniques and in particular his regretable habit of presenting us with unnecesary rape scenes and womb-bombs just wears away the respect, let alone the affection, which his other work has established.
ReplyDeleteThe book had to be put on hold for awhile for reasons which have nothing to the splendid Sequart Publishing. As I sit here, I have a room knee-deep in notes, chapters and a book-case of Millar product which has cost me over the last year more than a single month's worth of m'Teacher's pension. By which I mean, I've admired much of his work and I've made sure that I've took it as seriously as I can.
But there are things which I wouldn't want to be - shall I put it - spending my time reading in anyone's writing ...
If you ask me, the problem with Millar is the same as the one with Geoff Johns: they both broke through with a certain schtick, and rather than push themselves to become better writers, they're happy to relive those breakthrough moments, only doing so louder and slower so we'll really getthe point this time.
ReplyDeleteDina.
The constant negativity is getting to me. I know making moral judgments about comics is your niche. However, as a reader who respects your intelligence and opinions I have a request:
ReplyDeleteIf a story is so poorly written that you cannot find authorial intent in the text and must cast around for some external moral standard then please say that. That's as damning an indictment of a work of art as ever there was one. And if you can find authorial intent and an internally consistent argument being made in a story then please consider judging it on those terms. On its own terms.
When a story is, on its own terms, about men then let it be about men. When a story has something to say about the ugly side of life, let it be ugly. When a story is slighter in content per issue than some classics, let it be slight. When a story (by Mark Millar perhaps) is sexist or racist or loud or on the nose or tone deaf then call it out by all means, but keep in mind that perhaps he is not in the business of having any uplifting message.
And understand that as a reader I silently appreciate every time you forgo sarcasm or outrage and instead choose to focus on the positive and that I do not believe I am alone.
Hello Dina:- There certainly is a sense of writers who are well within their comfort zone with both GJ and MM at the moment. And I suppose that the degree of success they've achieved might either justify their working as they do, or it might explain why they appear to be producing work which has little of the excellence of their best comics. In both cases, there very much is the sense of work reduced to a formula, and of an assumption that more of the same - with the extreme moments turned up to 11 - is what excellence is.
ReplyDeleteAnd given the sales figures, I'd say that such an argument would be well nigh impregnable. But I'm glad that I'm not the only one who feels that what's being produced is often complacent, and, in MM's case, offensive. Thank you :)
Hello Micah
ReplyDeletewhat you seem to be saying is that you'd like the blog a lot more if I (1) change the content of it dramatically, and (2) fundamentally change the type of language and the form of the debate I try to put to use too.
If you're looking for a blog without politics, or at least my politics, and one without my kind of passion and sarcasm and the like, might I suggest that there's thousands of them out there? I'm sorry this isn't the one for you. I wish it had been. I really do.
But if I change the blog as you suggest, it wouldn't BE my blog. It wouldn't reflect me, and it wouldn't deal with the issues which I'm most interested in.
In fact, it'd be YOUR blog, and nothing to do with me at all. You do see that? You're asking me to change the fundamental form and content of the blog.
Given what you're saying, you surely should be writing your OWN blog, and producing the kind of work which you most enjoy. Perhaps you are. But one of the reasons why I started this blog was that I couldn't find enough of this kind of material elsewhere. Most folks would say that's not surprising! But I produce what I would want to read myself. And this is that.
Millar is a strange beast. I get the sense that he's a lot "softer" than he wants to be seen to be, and his public persona, and his attempts to "shock" can only be seen in that context - it feels like Millar's over-compensating for examples of his own nostalgia and affection for these silly comic books. Only nerds actually care about such things in a meaningful way, and Mr. Millar might not be able to market himself so well if word got out he wasn't a "jock" with a "devil may care" reckless streak, mocking the conventions he clearly loves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about his stronger work: 1985, Fantastic Four, The Ultimates, Marvel Knights: Spider-Man. I'd even throw Superman Adventures and Flash in there for nothing, and maybe his Justice League fill-ins. Oh, and definitely Red Son.
What defines these books is that his considered and intelligent cynicism is offset by a deep and genuine affection for the material. Even in Red Son, which intially looks like a condemnation of Superman as a paternalist fantasy, is actually a deconstruction of the idea of a "proactive" and "political" Superman, and a defense of the character's minimal meddling in world affairs. In short, it's a defense of a character who is constantly attacked for not being "relevent." It seems to say, "You want relevent Superman? Here's what it looks like!"
His Ultimates are dysfunctional and highly flawed individuals, with very obvious personal flaws... but they are the people who save the day, and that makes them heroes.
Marvel Knights: Spider-Man features a bit more gore than most Spider-Man books, but it's just one big Sinister Six story as an excuse for Millar to play with his favourite ever toys. It's a conventional superhero story through a Millar lense, that applies nostalgia balanced with modern cynical sensibilities.
If you read these, you might believe he was a writer who had the same sort of affection and enthusiasm for the genre that his former collaborator, Grant Morrison, had. And Millar can't have that. I suspect it's because Morrison never "broke" Hollywood, and Millar wants to be seen as the voice of an irreverent counter-culture, rather than an affectionate champion of a medium on the verge of collapse.
So you get nonsense like this or Wanted, as if to prove he cares nothing about modern comic books. It feels like the type of "they mean nothing to me" gambit you see in bad action movies. This Millar makes bad taste jokes about his proposed counterpart to The Death of Superman. Hint: it involves rape and Wonder Woman.
It all seems like a man trying to prove he's more irreverent than a reading of a good half (arguably THE good half) of his work suggests.
Anyway, sorry to ramble.
A bit of historical ephemera for the conversation: Millar, circa 2005, joking about a pitch he sent to DC.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm laughin'.
Hello Darren:- “Millar is a strange beast. I get the sense that he's a lot "softer" than he wants to be seen to be, and his public persona, and his attempts to "shock" can only be seen in that context - it feels like Millar's over-compensating for examples of his own nostalgia and affection for these silly comic books.”
ReplyDeleteHe’s certainly done an awful lot of very decent-hearted things in his public life, and a great deal of his work expresses fundamentally humane values. Yet he just can’t stop playing with those rape scenes, among a range of other issues which he just doesn’t seem to be in the slightest bit interested in. It’s an inexplicable business. I can understand why he might want to challenge certain taboos in his work, and why he want to use them to generate humour and excitement. But why, for example, rape? Who is he satirizing there? The only people he can be attacking is those people who think that rape out never to be used as entertainment, and ought always to be the compassionate and responsible focus of whatever scene it occupies.
“Only nerds actually care about such things in a meaningful way, and Mr. Millar might not be able to market himself so well if word got out he wasn't a "jock" with a "devil may care" reckless streak, mocking the conventions he clearly loves.”
I’m not a teacher anymore as I was just a few years ago, but if I were, I’d ask my students what they thought of his persona as pushed in Clint and, a few years ago, Wizard. To me, it reads as embarrassingly crass, like a well-meaning hip priest in a youth club who refers to the folks before him as his posse. It’s cringeworthy in places, and for all that it’s supposed to be self-mocking, it seems quite desperately out of place. In short, it’s as convincing a portrayal of a credible child-man as are the presenters of Top Gun.
“I agree with you about his stronger work: 1985, Fantastic Four, The Ultimates, Marvel Knights: Spider-Man. I'd even throw Superman Adventures and Flash in there for nothing, and maybe his Justice League fill-ins. Oh, and definitely Red Son.”
Indeed. There’s quite a few pieces in the DC Giants of the late ‘90s. Old Man Logan definitely belongs there, and underneath all the blood and guts is a foundation connected to the whole business of family responsibility. I’ve not read the previous Wolverine epic for a while, but I remember it fondly. And there’s some find short stories with Rian Hughes, Aztec, a lovely short story about the Troubles and his own family’s past, and so on and on. That’s a really good back catalogue, which is why his refusal to just grow up a touch in certain ways rankles.
”What defines these books is that his considered and intelligent cynicism is offset by a deep and genuine affection for the material. Even in Red Son, which initially looks like a condemnation of Superman as a paternalist fantasy, is actually a deconstruction of the idea of a "proactive" and "political" Superman, and a defense of the character's minimal meddling in world affairs. In short, it's a defense of a character who is constantly attacked for not being "relevant." It seems to say, "You want relevant Superman? Here's what it looks like!"”
And Red Son would’ve been all the more impressive, and would’ve perhaps made MM’s reputation years before he cracked it, if it’d been printed when he first developed the idea. I’ve got mentions of it in interviews he gives in the mid-90s, if my memory doesn’t entirely fail me.
cont;
cont;
ReplyDelete”His Ultimates are dysfunctional and highly flawed individuals, with very obvious personal flaws... but they are the people who save the day, and that makes them heroes.”
And some of the problems with the Ultimates are sorted out in later books. So, Cap’s problems with the French is actually commented upon by the Ultimate Avengers, placing it as a personal problem rather than the meaning of Millar’s script as a whole.
”Marvel Knights: Spider-Man features a bit more gore than most Spider-Man books, but it's just one big Sinister Six story as an excuse for Millar to play with his favourite ever toys. It's a conventional superhero story through a Millar lense, that applies nostalgia balanced with modern cynical sensibilities.”
And it’s impossible not to read Peter’s concerns about protecting his family and providing for them when he’s gone as in some way informed by the terrible health problems MM had during that period.
”If you read these, you might believe he was a writer who had the same sort of affection and enthusiasm for the genre that his former collaborator, Grant Morrison, had. And Millar can't have that. I suspect it's because Morrison never "broke" Hollywood, and Millar wants to be seen as the voice of an irreverent counter-culture, rather than an affectionate champion of a medium on the verge of collapse.”
There’s a host of hypothesis that circumstances inspire, aren’t there? I suspect that MM is a profoundly ambitious man, and just in case I sound snotty about that, I have nothing but good to speak of folks who drive themselves hard and achieve accordingly. But since 2009, the evidence of broader wordly success has far exceeded the value of his scripts, which have been, in m’own opinion, thin and predictable. And often embarrassingly so.
”So you get nonsense like this or Wanted, as if to prove he cares nothing about modern comic books. It feels like the type of "they mean nothing to me" gambit you see in bad action movies. This Millar makes bad taste jokes about his proposed counterpart to The Death of Superman. Hint: it involves rape and Wonder Woman.”
By chance, Harvey sent in a link to same “joke” last night, so both of your welcome comments will sit next to each other with that damning example of MM’s humour.
”It all seems like a man trying to prove he's more irreverent than a reading of a good half (arguably THE good half) of his work suggests.”
It’s as if he thinks that making a fuss is more important than whatever it is that the fuss is about. Yet I can’t believe that he’s not smarter than that. Well, of course he is. So what does he think when he does these things?
”Anyway, sorry to ramble.”
I see no rambling. You’re always welcome to swap ideas here, Mr D. But I see no rambling :)
Hello Harvey:- Gosh, I wonder why some folks find it hard to believe that MM has often produced work that's both extremely entertaining and ethical too?
ReplyDeleteI could understand him attacking people who make insensitive, unhelpful and exploitative comments about rape. That would be a group of folks worth satirizing. There'd be a fair degree of physician heal thyself about it, mind you.
But whatever the bee in the bonnet he has about his right to make these rape jokes is, it's beyond my powers of understanding. It can't be that he just keeps dropping in these moments without realising it's happening. Well, he certainly does have the right to discuss pretty much whatever he wants. No-one's questioning that, or if they are, they shouldn't be, of course.
But why be so breathtakingly, so consistently, heartless?
Does this mean that you're soured on writing a book about this guy?
ReplyDeleteHello Mike:- I’m still an admirer of a great deal of his work. It’s just that the arc of his story appears to have changed …
ReplyDeleteWaitaminute now...that 'evil dick' line. Isn't that from Preacher? It was a recurring line with Jody and TC.
ReplyDeleteSo not only is the scene abhorrent, but it's derivative of Ennis, who is a better writer by a good country mile.
Hello Emmet:- Never having quite managed to tune into Preacher's frequency, I had no idea that was so.
ReplyDeleteWhat do we make of that, then? That Motherfucker is a comic book fan who's been influenced by Preacher? That it's a dreaded homage?
Oh, dear ...
I'm not sure that I agree with you that GE is always a better writer than MM. I think he's MM's equal at the very least, and I think he's more focused on his work and thankfully unweighed down by any desire to crack wise to the playground, a tendency that contaminates so much of MM'S work. (It's not that appealing to a sense of the adolescently transgressive is wrong in itself, of course, but it is that it has to be done in a far cleverer and sharper way.) When GE's pushing the envelope in the likes of The Boys, I can always see a purpose for it, and I can't recall ever throwing a comic of his over my shoulder for the sheer weariness of reading its childish insensitivity.
At the moment, GE's work is of course of real & consistent worth. MM could manage to consistently match him, but I don't think he's too bothered by the quality of his work so much as the receptiveness of his audience at the moment.
Well it's apples and oranges with Millar and Ennis and I didn't mean to enter into a blow by blow comparison between them. But you are exactly right to say that one is focused on causing a scene, whereas the other seems more invested in elaborating on the ideas behind his writing. I have no intention of reading Crossed, but I support the premise as an excellent one as a counter to the survivalist fantasy of zombie fiction.
ReplyDeleteI guess having grown up in Ireland as well, you learn quickly to disregard nonsense being spouted by folks overly fond of guns.
Millar on the other hand simply does not interest me at all. There's nothing for me to latch on to in his recent work.
Hello Emmet:- I'm sorry if I seemed pedantic in response to your point. The truth is, the comparison was a really interesting one to me, and given my research, I'm always grateful for a new way of looking at MM. I actually read the first volume of War Stories last night in order to follow up what you'd been saying, and it really was instructive to remember how GE puts his skills to the service of the story, whereas MM so often seems to put the story to the service of his own public image.
ReplyDeleteYou've certainly inspired me to get round to starting AND finishing off Preacher this time.
"I guess having grown up in Ireland as well, you learn quickly to disregard nonsense being spouted by folks overly fond of guns."
Indeed.
And that spurs the thought that MM will sidestep many a moral point if it serves an attention-grabbing story. Civil War is a less pernicious, but blatantly obvious example of this, a super-hero "out of my cold dead hands" story with the most pathetically speedy and shallow resolution.
"Millar on the other hand simply does not interest me at all. There's nothing for me to latch on to in his recent work."
Me too. In fact, quite the opposite.
Re-reading War Stories after your comment reminded me of how focused and able and compassionate a writer Mr Ennis is. Thanks :)
My pleasure. Also I'm hoping my piece on the Milo Manara archive goes live today on Comic Booked. I mentioned you in the introduction (basically - I'm writing this piece on Manara, but you'd be better off if Colin Smith was instead).
ReplyDeleteCheers.
ps: I guess for me, with Ennis, the ugliness of human nature is always rooted in something. There's always a discernible cause. In Millar it is there for effect.
I've been holding off on commenting here, because I've been mulling it over. I do recall reading the story in question and thinking this depiction seemed rather gratuitous, and a voice in the back of my head thought, "What will Colin make of this?!?" And of course, it's all complicated by my role as Sequart's publisher, so I'm also thinking of this book I really want to read! -- and wondering how this changes that.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad this post exists, as I am everything you've done, Colin. I also think some of your best points aren't even about the moral dimension but about how some seem to think Millar's "channeling" rather than writing. For me, Kick Ass went off the rails once the other super-heroes started showing up in the first series, because this happened in ways which didn't feel as inevitable as the first few issues. I'd contrast that with Watchmen and Miracleman, which are a bit better in following through on a central conceit or two.
I do think you're onto something, Colin, about the recent more Hollywood Mark Millar. I'm glad to see you and Greg Burgas defending such works as Millar's Swamp Thing and Superman Adventures and Red Son (and yes, Millar did indeed have that idea well in advance, certainly in the 1990s sometime). I'd personally defend the ending of Wanted, though I think you're getting close to identifying its ending as a kind of moment for Millar, in which he's sort of writing himself as embracing the amoral in the ending. And I do think there's been a falling off as of late, although I'd champion Civil War and have found Superior, while not up to Millar's best, certainly much better than most of the super-hero titles on the market. (And I do think the super-hero's different after his Authority, in ways we've still not yet fully addressed.)
Anyway, sorry to babble on. I'd just like to say that, while everyone here is right about Millar, including how this scene is representative of an unfortunate direction in his writing as of late, I wouldn't count him out. He's simply too smart to do so, and this current stage shall pass too. Let's hope he stays away from the self-pastiche of Frank Miller's later works (bold and enjoyable as they sometimes are). That strain's certainly present. But the bid for big-name Hollywood fame is either going to succeed or not, and we'll see where Mr. Millar is in two years.
If you don't wish to read his work in the meantime, I wouldn't blame you. And there's no reason the book can't cut off at a certain point.
Thanks for another post that made me think.
well i'll just say this,
ReplyDeleteas a man, and as a millar fan, and as someone who was (if you want to get personal) the victim of sexual assault from a woman a long time ago, i really liked this issue.
first off, i want to say that i never liked katie as a person in the first volume of kick ass. that is to say, i thought she was a good character, but i didn't like the character she was. i thought she was mean and shallow and obnoxious ad cruel. i thought she was a fair representation of the girl that the nerdy guy has a crush on in highschool.
that's not to say she was realistic. she was as realistic as dave was. but her behavior was, to me, an amplified version of how real girl's like that behave. i.e. sending dave the picture of her blowing her boyfriend was simply millars jacked up version of general high school p.d.a's the same way kick ass is millar jacked up version of a high school nerds attempt to get tough.
now,
having not liked katie and seeing her put through the hell that she goes through for no reason other than being the object of dave's misplaced affection was shocking and paradigm shifting for me in that i suddenly felt very, very, bad for her.
she was a (minor) villian/antagonist in dave/kick ass's world who was suddenly being punished for reasons that she didn't understand and was in no way responsible for. she was being punished for no other reason than dave liked her and LIED about his relationship with her while being tortured in volume one.
so everything that's happening to her is, from the stories perspective, entirely dave's fault. HE started the super hero craze, HE turned red mist into the villian, HE fantasized about and lied to katie in volume one, HE told red mist she was his girlfriend. HE did it all.
it's all dave's fault.
just as every other act by the super villians is.
just like his friends getting involved in the movement is.
just like his dad's getting arrested is.
i find that millars commitment to causality and the idea of punishing dave for his desire to be a hero really interesting and compelling and i'm really responding to it.
now, as for the specifics of rape. yeah, it's rough, and yeah, it's intense, and yeah, it shows up in his comics a lot. but, and i know you've pointed this out frequently, it shows up in COMICS a lot. it's, to me, a pretty natural extension of the pent up sensationalistic hyper violence, repression, and emotional turmoil that comics, and especially superhero comcis, tend to deal with.
maybe it's because i know more than a few women who've been through it, and from dealing with it myself, but rape and sexual dominance issues have been apart of the conversation of my life for a really long time and so i see it as fair a subject to be dealt with/work with as any other.
so, again for me, evil dick is no more or less offensive then any of the other "horrible" things bad guys say in comics or any other art form.
if it's in the service of doing something interesting, for example: totally altering my opinion of a character i previously had little or no use for, then i'm okay with it. if, like with garth ennis, it's more in the service of cooler than thou post modern whatever it is he's doing now, then i'll pass.
but i can TOTALLY see how it would really bother people too.
anyway. that's how i see it.
thanks
Hello Emmet:- Comics Booked is an interesting site. I'm fascinated by what you'll say about Milo Manara, I must say :) You're not up on the site yet, but I want to read that article! I'll keep trying.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the shoutout. It's much appreciated.
"I guess for me, with Ennis, the ugliness of human nature is always rooted in something. There's always a discernible cause. In Millar it is there for effect."
I have an awful feeling that there's little that's been published since his FF which could be used to counter that P.O.V. ...
Hello Julian:- “ For me, Kick Ass went off the rails once the other super-heroes started showing up in the first series, because this happened in ways which didn't feel as inevitable as the first few issues. I'd contrast that with Watchmen and Miracleman, which are a bit better in following through on a central conceit or two.”
ReplyDeleteI quite agree. Kick Ass’s charm was in the way in which it discussed the idea of a super-hero in something which, if you closed both eyes and wished hard enough, might even be the ‘real’ world. But MM has quickly slipped into meta with KA:2. It’s an adaption of decades-old superhero tropes, and MM has a theory that the public wants HIS take on the superhero tradition boiled free of continuity. And so – it seems – that’s what he does. We’re not getting stories so much as MM’s take on what the public might want from the superhero tradition,
”I do think you're onto something, Colin, about the recent more Hollywood Mark Millar. I'm glad to see you and Greg Burgas defending such works as Millar's Swamp Thing and Superman Adventures and Red Son (and yes, Millar did indeed have that idea well in advance, certainly in the 1990s sometime).”
Oh, of course. The response to the rape in KA2:II on my part was exasperation. How can a bloke this smart be so …. Is it cruel or careless? Who can say? But there’s too little talent and skill in the world to not feel just repulsion about the trivialization of rape, but the waste of a writer’s potential.
“I'd personally defend the ending of Wanted, though I think you're getting close to identifying its ending as a kind of moment for Millar, in which he's sort of writing himself as embracing the amoral in the ending.”
It is defensible. I think it’s poorly done. Morally solid until the cack-handedness of the storytelling compromises it. Unfortunately, it also helps to create the context in which the dubious attitude to gender and race in SOME of his work starts to overshadow the rest.
“And I do think there's been a falling off as of late, although I'd champion Civil War and have found Superior, while not up to Millar's best, certainly much better than most of the super-hero titles on the market. (And I do think the super-hero's different after his Authority, in ways we've still not yet fully addressed.)”
We might disagree about Civil War :) But Superior is adequate. But it’s still MM’s take on the Captain Marvel archetype. It’s a basic comics type given a MM clean’n’polish and pushed out into the broader culture. I appreciate much of its compassion, but I look at it and I’m sure that MM can write that in his sleep. I’m not suggesting that he should be writing high art. I’m just suggesting that this is closer to parody than innovation.
“Anyway, sorry to babble on. I'd just like to say that, while everyone here is right about Millar, including how this scene is representative of an unfortunate direction in his writing as of late, I wouldn't count him out. He's simply too smart to do so, and this current stage shall pass too.”
Well, seven movies on the go, a TV company, Clint … I’m not sure why MM would ever care about anything other than the road he’s on. And in those terms – those vital and entirely justifiable terms – MM’s in control of events now. In a sense, I suspect that his life is the work of art now rather than the comics. And yes, I have been thinking a lot about it :)
“Thanks for another post that made me think.”
Thank you for saying that. My best as always to you.
Hello Anonymous:- Ours are different opinions re: this example of Kick Ass, but what I won’t do is repeat the same points which I’ve made above. You’ve been civila and cool in how you’ve expressed yourself, and I appreciate that given how we differ, so I’ll not fall into the insulting trap of going on and on about the same things I've already discussed in any detail :) If I don’t respond to a particular point, it’s just because I’ve already had my say and I don’t want you to feel that I’m trying to shout you down. Doing so was never the point of this blog!
ReplyDelete“well i'll just say this, as a man, and as a millar fan, and as someone who was (if you want to get personal) the victim of sexual assault from a woman a long time ago, i really liked this issue. “
And I have been keenly aware that my opinion on this isn’t in any way objective or absolute. There’s a difference between wanting to express an opinion with passion and wanting to tell the world that they’ve no right – the swine – to disagree. And I appreciate you disagreeing, because I hope that means that the tone of the blog encourages differences of opinion. I hope that’s so. If it’s not, my apologies, and thanks for posting despite the tone of the blog.
” … i want to say that i never liked katie as a person in the first volume of kick ass …now, having not liked katie and seeing her put through the hell that she goes through for no reason other than being the object of dave's misplaced affection was shocking and paradigm shifting for me in that i suddenly felt very, very, bad for her.”
It’s certainly a valid perspective., and an interesting one. I was very deliberate in stating that I was reviewing the incident in the context of the Clint chapter. It’s something which I’m very concerned about in the modern era, namely the belief that the form that a chapter will take when its collected is the only one that matters. I can’t agree with your point re: Katie on a personal level, but the difference in the way in which we’re evaluating the story is an interesting one to me, and one which I will think about.
”i find that millars commitment to causality and the idea of punishing dave for his desire to be a hero really interesting and compelling and i'm really responding to it.”
I’m not for rape being inserted into a story as a way of developing another character’s personality or their story as a whole. I think the issue of rape and the way that it’s treated in the media is just too challenging and sensitive a business to use in this way. But, again, I do respect how coherent your own take on this is.
Cont:
Cont:
ReplyDelete”now, as for the specifics of rape. yeah, it's rough, and yeah, it's intense, and yeah, it shows up in his comics a lot. but, and i know you've pointed this out frequently, it shows up in COMICS a lot. it's, to me, a pretty natural extension of the pent up sensationalistic hyper violence, repression, and emotional turmoil that comics, and especially superhero comcis, tend to deal with. maybe it's because i know more than a few women who've been through it, and from dealing with it myself, but rape and sexual dominance issues have been apart of the conversation of my life for a really long time and so i see it as fair a subject to be dealt with/work with as any other.”
Ah, now I never said that I didn’t think that rape and the issues of sexual assault shouldn’t be dealt with in comics. I can see why you might think that, and it’s certainly true that those who criticize such portrayals of rape tend to assume a position by which rape shouldn’t ever be discussed. I don’t share that. I don’t think that rape, as I’ve said, should be used as plot device in this way. And I’m appalled by the way in which the rape is framed and described. But I can think of a great many ways in which the same scene could’ve been done that wasn’t so – to me – offensive. So, I won’t repeat my objections, but I will say that it’s not the topic which alienates me. It’s the purpose to which it’s put and the way in which it’s done. In fact, if the latter point had been dealt with differently, I could see me suspending the former concerns too.
“if it's in the service of doing something interesting, for example: totally altering my opinion of a character i previously had little or no use for, then i'm okay with it. if, like with garth ennis, it's more in the service of cooler than thou post modern whatever it is he's doing now, then i'll pass.”
I’ve not come across my Ennis doing such a thing in such a way, but there’s huge amounts of his work that I’m ignorant of.
”anyway. that's how i see it.”
Thank you for explaining that position. By which I don’t mean “that wrong position”, in case I give that expression, but “that position which differs from mine”. I don’t BS on this blog, and that’s because I in part started it so I’d have somewhere where I wouldn’t have to, so if I say that I appreciate being shown an opposing point of view in a civil manner, then I hope you can believe that.
My best to you :)
I'm sorry to hear that your book on Millar is on indefinite hiatus. Your struggle with the conflicting ethical values in his work would make compelling reading...as well as providing a genuine character arc that Hollywood scriptwriters might envy!
ReplyDeleteI remember reading the issues of "Saviour" as they came out. I was shocked, appalled, disgusted at the Antichrist's rape and crucifixion of the priests. I also remember when a letter writer challenged him as using the scene to exploit anti-gay bias. IIRC, he replied that he had hesitated before including that scene, but decided that the scene was about the Antichrist's desire to humiliate the priests. He was telling a horror story, after all, and decided it was necessary to show his villain's depravity by example.
Kickass #4 was meant to be a horror story. I have no doubt about that. What complicates the reception of the series is that he had implicitly promised another grim and gritty, "realist" deconstruction of superhero tropes nimbly balancing humorous dialogue with Hollywood-slick ultraviolence.
Then he pulls the rug under his readers. To be fair, he had foreshadowed what a twisted motherfucker Red Mist was even before he took up the mantle. But in a very clever move, he distracted us with the takeout of the superhero team leader. We were taken by surprise, and now ready to enjoy the escalation of violence between two opposing forces.
Except that was a feint (on Millar's part). Instead the Mo-fo attacks innocents...in the most sadistic and deranged manner he can conceive of. Isn't that what badass villains are supposed to do...especially cosplayers who want to be "cool" and "edgy" and "real?"
Were you appalled? Disgusted? Horrified? Did Mo-fo's calculating and pathetic attempts at badassery sicken you? Then you are reacting exactly as the author intended. And if the horror is ratcheted up by a sneaking sense of familiarity, as if looking in a distorted mirror,then so much the better.
He doesn't even allow the reader the release of cheap sympathy. After all, hadn't he carefully led the reader to dislike Katy? Doesn't that stupid, slutty bitch deserve what she gets?
NO. SHE DOESN'T. SHE'S A PERSON, NOT A THING!
Lesson learned. Well played, Mr. Millar.
It's legitimate to wonder whether it's possible to employ the tropes of torture porn and fanwankery without reinforcing them. Yet I haven't encountered anyone who read that scene as funny or cool or tittilating. Millar and Romita, Jr. were able to exercise their craft well enough to manipulate audience expectations and reactions.
IMHO, the worst they're guilty of is trying to have it both ways: satirize the worst moral lapses of the CCC in the guise of a thoroughly commercial and marketable work.
It hurts to get your ass kicked, but sometimes you have to admire the sheer expertise involved. That Millar guy, he's got a mean feint and a devastating uppercut.
Hello David:- “I'm sorry to hear that your book on Millar is on indefinite hiatus. Your struggle with the conflicting ethical values in his work would make compelling reading...as well as providing a genuine character arc that Hollywood scriptwriters might envy!”
ReplyDeleteThank you for those kind words. I may have been fed up with Kick Ass II at the moment I wrote that piece, but I’m not abandoning the Millar book. Now I’m through that moment of disgust, I quite agree with you. There’s an arc to be followed there!
“I remember reading the issues of "Saviour" as they came out. I was shocked, appalled, disgusted at the Antichrist's rape and crucifixion of the priests. I also remember when a letter writer challenged him as using the scene to exploit anti-gay bias. IIRC, he replied that he had hesitated before including that scene, but decided that the scene was about the Antichrist's desire to humiliate the priests. He was telling a horror story, after all, and decided it was necessary to show his villain's depravity by example.”
It’s a fair argument, and it carries far more weight for Saviour than Kick Ass II, and that’s for sure.
“Were you appalled? Disgusted? Horrified? Did Mo-fo's calculating and pathetic attempts at badassery sicken you? Then you are reacting exactly as the author intended. And if the horror is ratcheted up by a sneaking sense of familiarity, as if looking in a distorted mirror,then so much the better.”
I very much see your point, and I’m only not responding to the sentences I’ve not quoted here from your comment because I think you make your points very well. I’ve nothing to add to them except ‘hear hear’.
However, I wasn’t horrified by Mo-Fo’s actions. I was irritated by MM’s poor writing and callous attitude towards what I see as his responsibilities. I really have no problem with rape and violence in any form of fiction per se. But what MM gave us was obvious and tawdry and trivialising. I can very much see your point about Katie and the way that the audience has been played with. Yet that was never something which I could find fault with.
Even the jokes could have remained if the work had been dealt with more imaginatively. For example, and putting aside whether the rape was necessary in the first place, why not have Mo-Fo and his morons discuss what they’re going to be doing before hand? Take away the cheap and predictable visuals and focus us instead on the inadequacies of these monstrous creatures, their gurning and boasting and mutual vileness. That would’ve been far more chilling, far more effective.
So I do accept your point as valid, even as we differ. I’m not claiming mine is objective. But it is heartfelt, for whatever that’s worth.
cont;
Cont;
ReplyDelete“It's legitimate to wonder whether it's possible to employ the tropes of torture porn and fanwankery without reinforcing them.”
I’d say don’t try. There’s no need to go there. There’s so much harm in this world being done by the way rape is socially constructed. Just this past week, a famous Brit TV celebrity was interviewing a rape victim and effectively seeming to blame her repeatedly for walking home alone at night. And the context of some comments carried some unpleasant implications beyond that. So, if it must be discussed, and I think it’s all best alone unless you’ve really got something to say that isn’t trash fiction, then the job can be done in a thousand other ways, and that’s if, of course, the writer really needs to use rape at all. I’m unconvinced by that, of course. And yet, I will agree, your argument is meaningful and coherent.
“Yet I haven't encountered anyone who read that scene as funny or cool or tittilating. Millar and Romita, Jr. were able to exercise their craft well enough to manipulate audience expectations and reactions.”
Oh, I wouldn’t doubt that. That was never an objection, and I’m pleased to hear it’s so. I’m not into censorship because of the threat of imitation, because it’s rarely a problem except in certain specific, falsifiable examples. No, as I say, my concern lay elsewhere, in concept and execution.
“IMHO, the worst they're guilty of is trying to have it both ways: satirize the worst moral lapses of the CCC in the guise of a thoroughly commercial and marketable work. It hurts to get your ass kicked, but sometimes you have to admire the sheer expertise involved. That Millar guy, he's got a mean feint and a devastating uppercut.”
You know, we may not agree here, but I have to say ‘thank you’ for putting an opposing case with such good humour and in a spirit of peaceful debate. That’s incredibly cool, if I may say so. My best to you :)
colin-
ReplyDeletethanks for taking the time to respond to my long post. i took no offense from anything you said, you seemed like a reasonable cat, which was why i took the time to post at all.
and, just as you said, i'm not here to say that i'm right and you're wrong any more than you said it to me. it's more about different interpretations and why they're different and still valuable.
as for ennis, i don't know if i can think of a specific instance where he uses rape specifically to further his too cool for school attitude, i was just referring more to his general attitude and underlying misanthropy. his stuff, to me at least, reads as ugliness for the sake of ugliness and i never care about any of his characters, as opposed to millar, where the violence often seems to accompany some sort of painful emotional revelation or growth or is the consequence of some tragic chain of events. like katie in the sequence we're all so worked up about.
ennis offends me because i think he thinks people are stupid and superhero's are stupid and he wants me to agree with him.
warren ellis is kind of the same way. he and ennis both attack facists and superheroes the way republicans attack gays. with such a single minded obsession that i can't help but wonder if, secretly, they really are what they attack.
Hello Anonymous:- I do like the idea of being a reasonable cat. It seems like the kind of phrase which only a knave could use scornfully, and there's no trace of knavery in your sentences :) Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI will agree with you re: Ennis's work on The Boys and his attitude there-in to the superhero genre. It's not that I find the approach invalid. In fact, I'm convinced that the very idea of a 'realistic' one full of super-heroes to be a terrifying one. I just feel uncomfortable with the full-on assault of The Boys. I don't feel like I'm learning anything new, which is exactly the opposite to how I feel about Ennis's War Stories, which are astonishingly humane and touching comic books. It's not that I'm offended by anybody loathing the very concept of the superhero. It's just that it feels like something of a dead-end after twenty or so issues.
I think you might be surprised by the first 12 issues of the Authority and by the last three Secret Avengers stories by Mr Ellis. They're actually deeply traditional and enjoyable superhero stories, and quite different to what might be expected. In fact, the Secret Avengers run is even somewhat .... fond! Will wonders never cease?
you know it's funny, i really liked authority, but bailed after the first tissue of his run of SA. it was more for financial reasons than anything, but now that remender's taking over i might go back and pick up the ellis issues i missed. and maybe i'll give war stories a try some day too. hope springs eternal.
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous:- That's odd! I too bailed after the first SA issue, and that's despite finding the issue fairly enjoyable, and despite enjoying as I always do the JM art. But I picked up the next one and the whole idea of the ghost killer articulated truck in Eastern Europe made me think that HERE was a modern-era comic book of absurd and yet absolutely enjoyable ideas. As everything's done in one, it seems like a very-unlike 2011 product!
ReplyDeleteIf I may: the War Story to start with is "Archangel". It's in the vol. 2 collection, and it's the fourth issue of the second volume of individual issues. It's mostly gentle, often slow, historically fascinating, and absolutely heart-warming.
Dear Colin,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad my comments were received in the spirit intended. I really tried to rise to the level of intellectual rigor and good humor that characterizes your blog.
Previous commenters have characterized Millar's recent writing as "crass," "vulgar," "opportunistic," and designed to outrage. That part sounds pretty fair, actually. I just don't think that disqualifies his work as "legitimate satire."
What could be more outrageous than Swift's "Modest Proposal," the mother of modern English satire? Swift never breaks character to reassure the reader that of course he finds the idea of babies as food supply repulsive. The reader is forced to reach his own conclusions, and the work is the stronger for it. Satire of that type always runs the risk of being misinterpreted, and may even end up incorporated as an exemplar of their target. (For example, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser in the fantasy genre, and Lobo in the superhero genre.) Marshall Law and the Boys are other works which are often taken at face value...and they've both dealt with rape as plot elements. Garth Ennis, in particular, made it a longterm subplot affecting two of the main characters, and ultimately repudiating the standard comic book tropes. "It didn't make me dark, or sexual! It made me want to scream and scream until I died!"
It's not the only type of satire. There's often a clear punch line which reveals the writer's intent, as in Frederic Bastiat's "Petition from the Manufacturers of Candles..."
I really hope that Millar can do justice to the aftermath of the attack. His comments on his forum have been in his full Stan Lee huckster mode, though, which does little to inspire confidence. ("Wait until you see the epic battle between Hit Girl and Mother Russia! Best. boss fight. ever!")
Hello David:- You've never been anything other than civil and sociable, so why wouldn't I take your comments seriously? :) I do see your point, in that differences of opinion do tend to break down in DIFFERENCES on the net. And yet, having written at the top of the blog that I'd welcome all opinions as long as they were civil, I'd be an even worse person than I already fear I am if I threw my toys out of the pram upon being challenged. And being properly challenged is always a good thing, even if at the time it can sometimes feels somewhat unsettling. Anyway, as I say, you're a civil egg, and since I dish it out here, I'd better take it! I regard it as a genuine kindness that you on occasion drop in, comment and, yes, disagree. Thank you.
ReplyDelete"Previous commenters have characterized Millar's recent writing as "crass," "vulgar," "opportunistic," and designed to outrage. That part sounds pretty fair, actually. I just don't think that disqualifies his work as "legitimate satire."
Oh, I agree. But I wasn't defining Miller as 'crass' because of his work content, and I suspect that others might not have been either. Rather, I regarded his apparent purpose as crass and so on, which leaves the way he expresses his purpose standing as a crass example too. To my mind, a satirist can do whatever they like, full stop, as long as it's within the bounds of the law. MM's work is certainly that. But then the issue is what the satire's for. If the satire is well-designed and aimed in a direction that I can regard as a legitimate target - for these judgments are never objective on anyone's part - then I'm fine with it. But who was MM satirizing?
That's the key question. It's the point of the satire that justifies whatever means have been put to use. And in the context of KA:2:11, there's little evidence of satire being used at all. Who can MM possibly be satirizing? Well, he might be deliberately using the tropes of rape-porn in order to wind up folks who disagree with the use of rape-pron as a component of entertainment. If so, I'd say that puts him on the side of the devils in the argument. Given how rape is so commonly treated with callousness in the media, given that its drastically under-reported and its perpetrators statistically likely to escape punishment for their offenses; well, it seems to me that the target for satire is the folks who don't care about rape and the rapists rather than those who consider it to be too important a topic to be trivialized.
In Swift's 'A Modest Proposal', there's no doubt what he's doing, and the point of his work was immediately plain to most of the good folks of the time. The idea of the eating of babies is an attack on those who'd allow Irish children to die, and indeed their parents too. His is an attack on the abuses of power which characterised the colonial attitudes of the time, and that's always been, as of course you know, the purpose of satire. To assault a given point of view or action in order. And whether the satire is legitimate depends on the legitimacy of the target.
So, who IS MM against? Who is he mocking? If he's saying that rapists are bad people and doing so by reveling in rape-porn traditions, then he's simply an idiot. There's little argument about whether rape is a bad thing or not, after all. The argument is about who's to blame and what the response should be. If MoFu is shown behaving so obviously in the wrong, to say the least, then we're hardly dealing with any issues other than, at best, the moronic idea that rape is bad & can be shown to be so in this way. And I don't think that KA211 can be seen as an satire on rape itself anyway.
What else might he be saying? Could he be attacking comics for rarely portraying sex crimes? What could be the point of that, that it could justify such exploitative unpleasantness?
cont
Cont
ReplyDeleteIn the end, and based on the material given, he's either quite happy having this material in there as a component of entertainment, or he's mocking those who'd disagree with the use of such material.
Whoever he's attacking, and I'm not sure he's even doing that, he's not attacking those who rape or those who refuse to accept it's a genuine and terribly prevalent problem. If that's satire, it's pathetic. If it's entertainment, it's pathetic too.
So, I entirely accept your point that being outrageous isn't of itself the problem. I really do agree. But the problem is what all that outrageousness - to be polite - is doing there. And I can't see a single reason why we'd regard what's there as satire of any value at all. Why not have a go at folks who disprove of the representations of racist lynchings too?
I too hope that in the wider context of Kick Ass 2, rather than in that of this chapter as published, the rape makes far more sense in moral terms, whether satirical or not. But without a legitimate target for those scenes, they really do stand - in my opinions - as crass, vulgar and opportunistic and designed to outrage.
But that's only is my opinion, obviously. And I hope the above sounds, if not valid, then at least respectful in how it stands as a response to your points.
If nothing else, MM is great debating practice my my ever-aging brain :) My best to you, Mr D.
Julian-
ReplyDelete"For me, Kick Ass went off the rails once the other super-heroes started showing up in the first series, because this happened in ways which didn't feel as inevitable as the first few issues. I'd contrast that with Watchmen and Miracleman, which are a bit better in following through on a central conceit or two."
I thought Red Mist was dealt with well in the KA1 (I haven't read 2 yet)- especially since none of his powers or abilities seemed particularly unrealistic, and the scene with them rolling down the street in his car seemed very much like something someone in that position, reveling in fame and power, might do.
Of course, Hit Girl throws the whole thing out the window. Although there is maybe a kernel of truth in the fact that I've heard child soldiers can be extremely ruthless, simply by virtue of not having been taught morals besides those of their leader/abuser. But of course, ruthless is one thing, unbeatable is something quite different.
For the record, I thought the ending of Wanted worked too, and I can't for the life of me imagine the comic ending any other way. But I can also see how it functions as this transition point in MM's career- like how Ben Folds Five's Brick is a great Ben Folds song, but after it, his albums tended to be chock full of Brick-y ballads to the extent that he neglected the rock he did so well.
Anonymous
I've only read Ennis's Hellblazer run, but it actually seems to have a lot of heart and compassion to it. Characters are complete bastards, but they're trying to do the right thing, and it's a very difficult thing to do. I haven't read too much of his stuff though, and I've heard of The Boys- my impression is that he's ruthlessly tearing superheroes down because of how much he loves them- almost tearing down the silly fans and creators rather than the (fictional) heroes themselves. Again, I haven't read it though.
I've been on a bit of an Ellis kick recently, but I'm not sure where he attacks superheroes- the Authority seems to be relatively pro-superhero, and almost pro-fascist, and Nextwave seems to me like the Venture Brothers' attitude toward Johnny Quest - a loving tribute by mercilessly mocking everything in the Marvel Universe. The only real mainstream superhero stuff I've read by Ellis is his Ultimate (I think?) Iron Man, and it was also my least favorite- but then again I've barely read any Ultimate (and not much Iron Man, either), so I'm not really sure how much is the character and how much is Ellis.
I think it is interesting that of Millar, Ennis, and Ellis, all of whom can have a very crude, sometimes filthy style, all of us have different feelings on which of them are just shock-jocks and which are doing it in the purpose of art.
I also never really felt any ill-will towards Katie in KA1 (again, I haven't read 2). When I was in high school & earlier, I remember resenting girls for not returning my affections, but now in my (relative) maturity, I can see it's not their fault they didn't see anything in that weird, socially awkward kid. (Or even if I'd been tall and handsome- I realize now it's not someone's fault for not being attracted to someone else.)
Also, as you point out, he was lying and misrepresenting himself to her for a long time, with the sole purpose of getting with her- that puts him purely in scumbag territory for me, and makes her actions completely justified.
I do agree that KA deals with consequences very evenly- Dave (that's his name, right?), Red Mist, and Big Daddy reap the results of their recklessness in ways it's hard to argue they didn't bring upon themselves.
Cont'd
Cont'd
ReplyDeleteColin
Red Son was pretty good, but didn't quite do it for me. I felt like it was too much composed of/referential to other Superman stories, and the denouement with the "why don't you put the world in a bottle?" didn't feel like the punch in the gut it was supposed to be.
I did like how Luthor and Superman came to be personifications of the US and USSR, with each embodying their principles. Just because Luthor was on the "good" side didn't mean anybody missed that he was still a megalomaniac. (unlike, say, Earth 2 Luthor)*
I also didn't like how he dealt with Wonder Woman, though it was made slightly better by Superman realizing he himself had dealt with her unfairly.
Maybe it would have worked better for me if it had come out closer to the Cold War, back when he had the idea. DKR & WM would not, I believe, have had the same impact had they been written and published in 2005 rather than 1986(5?).
(there's also this weird recurring theme, in RS and Old Man Logan, of the hero being swallowed and then bursting out and defeating the hero at the end. Not gonna comment on that.)
* I wonder if it is a jab at Kingdom Come that Superman has no problem with installing obedience chips in the brains of rebels, like Batman does at the end of KC.
Hello Historyman:- I think you’re P.OV. and that of Julian are entirely compatible. You’ve noted there are moments which are enjoyable, but the conceit is fatally flawed by the presence of REAL super-people in a story that’s supposed to be about a world without them. For me, the fact that there are great moments which don’t quite hang together is a mark that MM hadn’t quite solved the structural problems of the book. Good stuff, but not great stuff.
ReplyDelete”I've only read Ennis's Hellblazer run, but it actually seems to have a lot of heart and compassion to it. Characters are complete bastards, but they're trying to do the right thing, and it's a very difficult thing to do. I haven't read too much of his stuff though, and I've heard of The Boys- my impression is that he's ruthlessly tearing superheroes down because of how much he loves them- almost tearing down the silly fans and creators rather than the (fictional) heroes themselves.”
I can’t speak for GE, but I do know that he’s a man who knows his history. And anybody who’s studied the relationship of humans, and particularly men, to power will know that the basic premise of the superhero book is fatally, fatally flawed if the sub-genre is treated ‘realistically’. Power corrupts, and that’s all there is to it. The only question is how much it’ll corrupt. And that’s – of course – the raison d’etre of books such as the Boys and Marshall Law.
”I've been on a bit of an Ellis kick recently, but I'm not sure where he attacks superheroes- the Authority seems to be relatively pro-superhero, and almost pro-fascist, and Nextwave seems to me like the Venture Brothers' attitude toward Johnny Quest - a loving tribute by mercilessly mocking everything in the Marvel Universe. The only real mainstream superhero stuff I've read by Ellis is his Ultimate (I think?) Iron Man, and it was also my least favorite- but then again I've barely read any Ultimate (and not much Iron Man, either), so I'm not really sure how much is the character and how much is Ellis.”
He’s an honourable man, from all accounts, and I don’t think he’d take the Marvel dollar and then be graceless enough to sneer at the superhero book without treating the properties with respect.
”I think it is interesting that of Millar, Ennis, and Ellis, all of whom can have a very crude, sometimes filthy style, all of us have different feelings on which of them are just shock-jocks and which are doing it in the purpose of art.”
I too found that fascinating!
”I also never really felt any ill-will towards Katie in KA1 (again, I haven't read 2).“
I must say, I’d be staggered if anybody felt anything negative towards Katie if the grounds for their ill-feeling was that she wouldn’t play significant other to a boy who lied and lied and lied to her. Now, I’ve not read KA2 in the depth I intend to when the story is collected, but …. No, I can’t believe anybody feels so much entitlement that they expect to be loved and resent not being so to such a significant degree.
Cont:
.Cont'd
ReplyDelete“that puts him purely in scumbag territory for me, and makes her actions completely justified.”
Absolutely. And that’s the point at which the film absolutely jumps the shark for me. He’s rewarded for being a scumbag in the movie, whereas Mark Millar quite rightly has her refusing to find him beguiling because of his desperation and his dishonesty.
“Red Son was pretty good, but didn't quite do it for me. I felt like it was too much composed of/referential to other Superman stories, and the denouement with the "why don't you put the world in a bottle?" didn't feel like the punch in the gut it was supposed to be.”
Standard problem for MM’s books, I fear. He loathes continuity – and I can understand why – and yet he relies on superhero tradition to frame his stories. It’s why most of his work doesn’t make the leap up from ‘enjoyable’ to ‘splendid’. Yet I did think that the period 2007-9 saw him overcome a great deal of that.
” Maybe it would have worked better for me if it had come out closer to the Cold War, back when he had the idea. DKR & WM would not, I believe, have had the same impact had they been written and published in 2005 rather than 1986(5?).”
It’s a very good point, HM. From what his interviews say, the book was being produced, rewritten, edited, and so on for years and years. It’s hard to imagine that that process in itself might not have undermined the story.
”there's also this weird recurring theme, in RS and Old Man Logan, of the hero being swallowed and then bursting out and defeating the hero at the end. Not gonna comment on that.)”
Well, you don’t have to worry about Freud there. It’s gross, it’s funny, it’s exciting, it’d make a Friday night audience laugh at the Odeons. For God sake don’t think anymore it …
“ I wonder if it is a jab at Kingdom Come that Superman has no problem with installing obedience chips in the brains of rebels, like Batman does at the end of KC.”
I love to know. As you know, I think those superheroes in KC are wonderfully pathetic AND unethical enough to be considered, in comic book terms, evil.
But we’re back to the Boys and Marshall Law again, aren’t we?
This is a fantastic discussion. Just stellar. Very smart and wonderfully civil.
ReplyDelete(Which is ironic, given the comic in question.)
Hello Julian:- I'm incredibly grateful to folks for the conversation they've created here. Both disagreements and agreements have been restrained and respectful, and if there's been a fierce conviction to points made, that's never overpowered the desire to maintain a debate rather than initialing a brawl. And I've found my own ideas tested and shifting too, which can only be good.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, Julian. It allows me the chance to raise my glass of milk to the folks who've commented so decent-heartedly to the above.
ah ok, something i disagree with pretty much completely. i cherish millar's various abilities: to hit the reader where it actually hurts; to sum up completely the age in which he finds himself writing; and yes, to keep going out of his way to break taboos etc and push boundaries. i completely *agree* with you that what he did in this ish is utterly tasteless, but then he does "do a quentin", cut away to something else, in this case discreetly leaving the scene altogether.
ReplyDeletethe scene has impact. you have proved this i think ;-)
(i didn't wanna know at first what you would have to say about millar's excesses - and don't get me wrong there is something quasi-adolescent about his utter glee in throwing his figurative semen in people's faces - but in the end i just had to find out, may as well know we don't agree on everything... after all, who does, as it were... for the record i love all millar's recent stuff, pretty much, very much looking forward to secret service and the year's later arrivals, supercrooks #1 already on order... and yeah i love kick-ass... nemesis too, not found out yet what you think of that but i'll get round to it!)
Hello centrifuge:- I wouldn't ever want to challenge your opinions of Millar's writing here, or anywhere else. One of things I'm constantly concerned with as I pile up the notes and writing for my book on his work for Sequart is the problem of how to discuss somebody's work when they inspire such strong feelings. Whenever I write about him, there's always people who are angry because I make EITHER positive or negative comments. (By that I don't mean you, of course; I'm grateful for the civil way you and others here express disagreement.)
ReplyDeleteIn the end, my feeling is that rape is just too serious an issue to be used in the way that Millar and Romita do here. Because Millar doesn't write satire, as he himself has repeatedly claimed, his work often contains political aspects which contradict each other. It may be that which lends the sense you refer to that he express something, or indeed a great deal, of the spirit of the times. I sometimes wonder if he just doesn't want his cake and eat it, that he wants to be seen to take pot-shots all over the shop without ever standing still and making his work self-consistent and, accordingly, entirely principled.
I'm actually going to read Supercrooks tonight. I'm looking forward to it. And the last four pieces I've written on Millar's work on the blog have all been positive. I say that not because you ever need to read anything else here, but just to say that I've no problem with his work per se.
yeah cool :)
ReplyDeletei think he's being a bit disingenuous when he sais he doesn't do satire. he doesn't in the sense that mills does, but he knows full damn well that his (better and best) work examines genuine human themes; he also is not above lecturing the reader a bit about the way things really are, meaning the kind of mentality the people have who actually run the world.
for me he's motivated a lot by the fact he is badly misunderstood - loads of fanboys just have him down as a disengage-brain writer but the total opposite is true. now, he is smart enough to know how smart he is and the respect of his peers is probably enough for him, but the constant sniping must still get to him at times and the continual i-want-your-money jokes are not in fact jokes at all, or if they are he is the only one laughing :) also i think that sometimes (beyond his own natural delight in jolting people, something he shares with garth ennis of course) the over-the-top stuff is partly motivated by this too, it's all further middle fingers up the collective fanboy rectum in his mind... well maybe anyway... ok now this is sounding like midnighter analysing tank man and decommissioning him ;-) life imitating art imitating life...
being new here i did not realise yet that you're writing a book. full on :)
fwiw i don't agree with you about portrayals of rape at all, or rather about this one (i'll take your word for it that's what you're actually saying there). not sure what relevance this may have but for the record i'm sixteen years married in may and have a daughter... anyway. for me the scene HAD to be really gut-wrenching in order to be realistic for the character at the pitch he's let him reach. and besides, gang rape, it's in, innit. this is what i mean. same as the poor guy finding out his dad's dead cos they instantly take a photo of it and fling it across to his smartphone, precisely what would happen of course.
funnily enough i am in a poor position to judge the *exact* impact of "that" scene as i still haven't managed to get hold of issue 2 :( the fact that he and katie were an item was news to me.
Hello Hal:- there's no doubt that MM is being disingenuous, I entirely agree. But I think you put your finger on why his satire is - in my opinion - so unsatisfying. He plays with satire at the same time as he pursues quite contrary agendas, producing texts which are not only confused, but transmitting entirely contradictory meanings. I'd largely exclude the work of his "family" quartet of titles from 2008/9, following the end of Civil War. But elsewhere, he really does want his cake and he really does want to eat it. He wants to be a pillar of the community who can write dismissive and cruel scenes of sexual violence, he wants to produce critiques of America's involvement in the Middle East while also producing texts which conservatives can find appealing.
DeleteI think it'd be wrong of me to respond to your welcome critique of my opinion of the rape scene in Kick Ass II. I've said everything I could in the above and, as I think I've said above, SHOUTING LOUDER AND SAYING THE SAME THING wouldn't be of any use at all :) I appreciate you expressing disagreement in the manner you did. I often think that civility during disagreements is actually the best possible outcome, and it's been one of the real high points of my time blogging to experience so few folks who want to WIN THE FIGHT rather than expressing an opinion. (Of course, the trolls just get deleted, but there's been fewer and fewer of them as time passes. There used to be a considerable number of them, and some of them were hardcore racists and sexists. I think they gave up. Bless 'em. It's hardly like this is an important taste-making site. They're better off spitting elsewhere.)
heh heh. like you say... glad to hear you got rid of the trolls anyway. peaceful disagreement, as you rightly suggest, is the best recipe for growth in many ways.
ReplyDeleteit's funny, i hadn't even heard of millar a few years ago (lost touch with comics altogether for a long long time, only read hellboy collections, pretty much). the first thing i read was kick-ass, the year before last, then superman: red son. funnily enough, at the time i interpreted k-a as, precisely, social satire and a wonderful take on youth culture in particular. (but then, the first time i ever came across millar's name he was praising marshal law; so perhaps i was *looking* for satirical elements.)
last year i belatedly read his stories for the authority and totally flipped. now THEY contain so many layers, some of which are (heavily, even at times heavy-handedly) socio-political of course; but there are deeper philosophical aspects to it as well and a great deal of complex, precision-targetted deconstruction of the superhero genre, and of comics as a medium in general. my point here is that he need not necessarily have been consciously aware at the time of writing just HOW many different threads there were to this work.
so then i check out the beginning of his ultimate x-men run and it's, like, recognisably the same wit but about 5% of the density, the pages just turn themselves cos nothing really happens. i gather he had to take a pay cut (at least at first) when he went from wildstorm to marvel... well all i can say is, i should damn well think so too, those episodes must have practically written themselves after what he'd just come from. (of course - as i belatedly gather, once again - he learned how to phone in ultra-lightweight kids' scripts from his old mate mr morrison. some of that flash stuff is scandalous, GM is just making a point of saying to the younger writer "look how easy it is, they literally accept any old shite so long as it's sci-fi and the art is pretty". the reassuring thing is, as soon as millar goes solo on the title he instantly comes up with better stuff... but the training will have served him well at marvel, where fans learned to read from stan lee... look, i know you're a marvel fan and maybe one day i'll let you explain it all to me but let's not go there for the time being!!)
over the last year, then, i have been trying to bring myself up to speed with MM and his work, but having been burned by that x-perience, i have not made any attempt to read the actual marvel "canon" titles, or at least nothing beyond civil war (which i did read a month or so back, just re-reading it now actually). the ultimates is brilliant, he is really forcing fans to think there (i still haven't read most of these, trying to catch up as best i can). but i certainly don't intend to read the stuff co-written with bendis: i did get the first big trade of ultimate spiderman out of the library last year and was a bit shocked to find it literally just kids' stuff, i didn't even bother to finish it (despite its being another whirlwind read).
millar's a very savvy writer and, for me, frequently has a polemical purpose to his stuff even when he's not being upfront about it. yes, maybe you're right about his being essentially contradictory... in which case, i look forward to the book :)
Hello Hal:- You mention a string of Millar books which really are worthy of respect. Those who take against him, and particularly who feel they want to take Grant Morrison's side, ascribe the success of Red Son and The Authority to his influence. And there's no doubt that he did have a significant imput into those projects. Yet the idea that they're entirely or even predominantly his are, I believe, mistaken, and there's no issue where Kick Ass is concerned, as Morrison himself says.
DeleteI assure that I'm not a Marvel fan any more than I'm a Capitol Records fan just because the Beatles had records distributed by the label. I've no loyalties or fondness for the means by which art/craft is financed and sold, but there are moments when a label or corporation serves as a useful shorthand for the product of a particular period. So, I'm a huge fan of what Marvel under Lee, Kirby, & Ditko achieved from 1961 to 1965, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of the company. As soon as the people involved with a commercial enterprise leave or change, as soon as the product itself no longer hits the spot, then I've no allegiance at all.
I too have considerable problems with the Ultimate X-Men run of MM's. It's something I'm working through at the moment for the book. It's a project and a run which doesn't play to his "get in, shake it up, make a big noise, get out" M.O.
The Ultimates are great until MM and BH leave, indeed. Then the title is at best boring and at worst appalling. USM, as with you, never really appealed. I found it slow, slow, slow and flat. Strangely, the Lee/Ditko Spidey, which really was written for children, still carries far more weight with me. THAT I do believe is a masterwork.
Thank you for the generous words about the prospect of the book. I never expected MM's work to be so challenging to write about when I began. Wherever you treed, there's a debate and a controversy. Oh, well, that's fine, as long as I never have to read The Grudge-Father or Judge Dredd: Purgatory again.
hahaha, i have never read *purgatory* of course. some of that stuff i only know by reputation as of yet...
ReplyDeletethat's a good point about UXM, that it doesn't fit his typical pattern - of course i didn't really stick around to find out where he goes with it. i would be really interested to know how genuine MM's (now-)avowed love of classic marvel is - i read that he had no familiarity with x-men at all before he was headhunted for that. i do know he is more influenced by movies than comics in some cases (e.g. superior) and that seems to be one stick with which fans beat him. but i would also be fascinated to know if no-one at marvel was (shall we say) taken aback at the restyling of the avengers as a coal-black wetworks team (as in the authority)...
... which by the sound of it may have been partly under the influence of GM. see, this is something i missed out on by not being there at the time, as it were. i was unaware of this, and it's interesting to hear; even if *red son*, good as it is, didn't fire my imagination to the same extent as those authority stories (belatedly) did and do. i mean, now the idea is put to me, i can perhaps ascribe some of the more hallucinatory qualities in "the nativity" especially to morrison's influence; but then frank q's art seems to have those qualities most of the time anyway, as far as i can see: his characters really come close to stepping out of the page.
i take your point(s) about marvel, i suppose all this says a lot more about my prejudices than it does anything else. i do find lee very difficult though... i have recently tried some of the classic era captain americas and early hulks - but in both cases i had to "read" them just via kirby's fantastic layouts, i couldn't stomach the actual writing. i still haven't actually got my hands on those early spider-man comics though and i'm aware of their importance - actually ditko is just a name to me really, i know enough to be able to recognise which panels of *1963* are referencing him - and that's about it. the thing is: genuine quality doesn't really age, so it's waiting for me whenever i get to it :)
(i wasn't planning to keep on reading *ultimates* after the creators' run finishes... isn't it jeph loeb who took over? i read *hush*, didn't like it one little bit.)
Hello Hal;- Unless I'm very much mistaken, the free graphic novel in this month's Megazine is all Mark Millar Judge Dredd stories, and I believe that Purgatory is one of them. It's a great package, and just out this week, so perhaps that might be a way of experiencing that particular chunk'o'Millar without having pay for the privilage :)
DeleteTo my knowledge, and gawd help me I've read hundreds of interviews and even fan letters involving Millar from 1985 onwards recently, Millar was always a DC fanboy. However, his brothers did read Marvel and passed on to him Spider-Man and Iron Man comics. (He made and/or worse costumes of both characters are a young lad.) He also read the black'n'white Marvel UK reprints, including those edited by PSB's Neil Tennant. He doesn't seem to have read a great range of them though. The X-Men were largely unknown to him, as you say, before he took over the Ultimate line, though he'd co-written a rejected proposal in 1994 for a big crossover to Marvel involving a "Dark Xavier" epic. Certain characters at Marvel seem to have been encountered by him around 1976/7 such as the Punisher and Ghost Rider, which is odd but therefore convincing, and it's interesting to wonder whether the takes on those characters in the Ultimate Avengers were ultimately rooted in that childhood love.
According to Morrison, the first "mature" work by Millar which is completely free of his influence was Wanted. Working out who did what in the period from Big Dave in 93 to The Ultimates I in 2002/3 is something of a headache, I can tell you.
I'd agree with you about the early Hulks and Caps. The classic Lee for me is the Ditko Spider-Man & Doctor Strange and the Kirby FFs and X-Men, though many would disagree about the latter choice I'm sure.
But you do have to read the Loeb run on the Ultimates. It's so wrectched that it MUST be read!
ok, i'll go in reverse order... i'd have to trip over a copy! i've still only read the first (super human) ultimates collection - auctions on those get hotly contested, as i recently found out - so i haven't even really soaked up the good stuff yet. but i do know a (younger) guy at work who is into marvel so i will ask him...
ReplyDeleteah, doctor strange. right... kirby FFs i knew about of course. not actually *read* any yet. (presumably this stuff is still reprinted..?) i anticipate being blown away by the art... the writing i will have to take as an article of faith, take your word for it that some of it is at least bearable. (i do wonder how many readers bothered to get to the punchline of that "shamed by mistakes in english?" back cover to *1963* - or recognised it, if they did read it..!)
yes, definitely interesting to know about this: people seem to have stopped talking about it, to the extent that i didn't uncover it till you told me... it would be very interesting to know what exactly made GM get that outspoken about it, whether actual concrete ideas or images discussed between them were just "dragged and dropped" or what, how exactly is this influence felt to be quantifiable..? (i am not actually asking you for answers there, maybe i'll have a poke around and see what i can find.) to me, the authorial voice in "the nativity" and "brave new world" is quickly recognisable from later works. i don't think i've read anything earlier yet (?)
funnily enough i read ultimate avengers 2 & 3 very recently (not read the first one yet!) and i did enjoy the ghost rider stuff in -2 (first time he got to work with yu i think?). ah, off the top of my head i can't remember how that ends up for the punisher, i am getting confused now with civil war which i just re-read ;-) as (almost) a total newcomer i find it easy to get confused between one "reality" or universe, and another - and something else that threw me, emma frost asks tony stark in civil war, where was he when genosha got chomped... which i understand to be a reference to GM's new x-men, but i didn't realise that was "canon" - ?
- and finally thanks, good timing eh wot, i have ordered the new megazine forthwith... will be very interested to see the moore and reppion/d'israeli strip too.
mo'later i expect... like i say, i am spacing it out a bit more now for both our sakes :)
Hello centrifuge: please believe me, no matter how low your expectations for the Loeb Ultimates run, the book will fail to match them. One to treasure for it's irredeemable awfulness, I believe.
DeleteAll those old High Sixties Marvel are still in print as black and white collections at about a £10 for a phone book of tales. (There's a mass of more expensive colour collections too, but Kirby and in particular Ditko's art can really shine in B'n'W, and we Brits are used to reprints of Marvel material showing work without colour.) The Dr Strange material really hits its stride in terms of plot of strip in the last year and a half or so of episodes. The last year is exquisite stuff, perhaps the best that Ditko ever produced, and Lee's work is often very fine indeed.
The question of the division of labour between GM and MM is a complex one which changes from comic to comic. GM loyalists will claim that everything in MM's work before the two fell out is down to GM. There is a fair degree of stuff in interviews from the time which gives is a clue about who did what. GM feed MM a great mass of the structure and the conceits of the latter's ST arc. They wrote the script for alternative issues of Aztec and alternative arcs of Flash. The degree to which GM's ideas dominated their plotting sessions is impossible to quantify, though it's obviously substantial.
My understanding is that GM's X-Men is still canon, which means in MU terms that it's referred to when it's of use to the writer and ignored when it isn't.
It's an irony that the MU and UU can confuse readers, given that the UU was designed to stop that happening. Originally the UU was simply supposed to be a distillation of the MU's big-guns, simplifying the continuity in order to act as a gateway drug. That didn't last long, and now the UU is a mess, I fear.
I do hope you enjoy the Megazine, and the Millar JD strips. To my mind, he and Morrison's Judge Dredd suffered because they ignored the politics of the strip almost entirely. They turned into it the comicbook equivilant of an Arnie macho movie. Their success can be seen by the fact that when the history of Dredd was published in 1995 prior to the movie, neither were mentioned by name. They were grouped into the class of writers who followed John Wagner and failed to get it. And they didn't, alone or together. Never mind, there's plenty of achievement elsewhere in both folk's C.V.s :)
"Lee's work is often very fine indeed." - it's testament to my own ingrained prejudices that i found myself unwilling to countenance that idea... now i wonder, do i feel like buying B&W collections of them... maybe... i have seen how some of that stuff can shine in monochrome, and presumably the original colouring was pretty crappy anyway (?) - from what you say above, it's the dr strange stuff which i'm most tempted to start with. ok, i will think about it :)
ReplyDeletei am enjoying the meg (but the price!!! is that how much magazines cost these days?! i just never buy periodicals any more and although i do buy *some* current comics, that's different... and what, they call that a "graphic novel" do they? not!!) - it's proving a good read and it's well put together. i am not about to start committing to it now after all these years away though... that way madness lies! meanwhile, i actually quite enjoyed purgatory in a perverse way, can't say it was pleasant reading but i'm ok with that. it has to be said, it was more interesting as a window into mark millar than as an exercise in storytelling... and of course there's no clue from that how he handles dredd since he's not even in it. (btw... there's no other millar dredds in there, just an unrelated morrison janus: psi div story from a special and a TOTALLY unrelated time twister that i remember from the old days... all three drawn by ezquerra, and that's a graphic novel apparently - they're avin' a larf with that one mate ;-)
(fabulous art in that black museum story tho...)
Hello Cent:- I do understand what you mean about Lee's work. But when he was matched with the very best creators - Lee, Ditko, Wood - in the 61-65 period, he was often brilliant. But I guess I'd better stop or I'll start discussing his brilliant placement of word balloons etc etc
DeleteThe Meg actually stands as really good value these days. That's pretty terrifying, isn't it? It's especially so when the free mini-graphic novel is a winner. (I'd not class this month's as such.)
Reading Purgatory does have the in-your-face hype-out virtues/vices of 90s action movies. It's so keen to seem like a Stallone/Arnie movie that it feels like an advert for the very thing it's trying to emulate. That feels strangely like nostalgia now, though at the time it felt like misjudgement.
yeah, i see what you mean - but surely you must be aware of extra layer of connotations of the word "purgatory", coming from a (lapsed or indeed still practising) catholic - it didn't make me think of arnie really. MM is really most interested in *emotional* suffering, which is why he finds grice a worthwhile character; in fact now i come back to thinking about it, i would theoretically be interested to see where the character went from there... arghh! what am i doing to myself?!
ReplyDeletearf arf ;-)
erm - yeah - i think it's more interesting than you give it credit for actually, albeit like i say the interest lies far more in the sheer self-flagellation of the context than in the actual text as such. (other catholics have similar obsessions with the mortification of the flesh... just a warped, unconfessed sado-masochistic streak in mel gibson's case - !)
anyway, the sheer degree of unremitting unpleasantness is actually something i rather admire (but you may have inferred this by now! i watched a LOT of horror and gore movies in my time)
- of course it is also totally ridiculous in some ways - guy puts his hand into "molten slag", pulls it out with all the skin burned off, minutes later he's fine... etc (oh and the bad guy actually crawls out again..! wtf??) - but still, yeah, i quite enjoyed it, and i'm glad i read it although i don't rate it especially highly. of course, the whole catholic thing gets a MUCH more thorough working over in *nemesis* (and indeed in nemesis the warlock! obviously mills is lapsed... and therefore evinces self-consciousness about it earlier in his work)
Hello Cent:- Believe me, the ever-present Catholic themes in MM's work is always at the front of my mind, for I'm always concerned I'll miss it for the book. Although it's rare that the influence is particularly subtle. Mind you, subtle doesn't necessarily mean "good" in big tent/event comics, and Millar's religion does give his work a unique identity. From Savior in 1989 to the soul-tempting demon in 2012's conclusion to Superior, it's nearly always there. In that context, I agree that Purgatory is interesting. I'd argue that that doesn't make the story interesting unless you're particularly interested in the religious dimensions and the OTT unpleasantness. And what could be wrong with that? Horses, meet courses.
DeleteThere are whole threads dedicated to the plot-holes in Millar's 2000AD work. It's safe to say that either MM didn't care about the sense of his work or that he was subscribing to some version of Kerouac's first thought, best thought, believing that the energy of a largely unedited script was better than a well-edited alternative.
hi colin - dropped off for a week or so back there, one of my periodic "down times" (characterised by a complete lack of blogging and general lack of organised activity..!) - i haven't read *savio(u?)r* of course, or any of that really early stuff - how early is purgatory? - so i can't comment on that. and yes, i figured you would have taken the catholic stuff into account, i mean how could you not... i found his take on it in *nemesis* to be especially interesting since (with typical jesuit-style self-examination) he holds the mirror up to himself somewhat more than usual. but then, like i said before, my interest in that brutal all-action, no-plot judge dredd story was more to do with what it reveals about the writer's mentality and character... anyway, i seem to have run out of interesting things to say on this conversation so maybe we'd better just let it die ;-)
ReplyDelete(just got secret service #1 in the post... not read it yet)
Hello Cent:- I hope your down time was good for you.
DeletePurgatory was about 6 years into Millar's writing career, and close to end of his association with 2000AD. (There'd still be Daily Star Dredd strips being printed from his scripts in 97, but he was long gone and estranged from Tharg by then.) Over at DC, the more obvious Catholic themes were about to be joined and even overtaken by a fascination with Freemasonary, so you might enjoy spotting that stuff when/if you come across it.
Secret Service will make a fun popcorn movie. For the moment, I'll say no more, due to the fact that I'm saying it elsewhere :)
well, despite its popcorn movie beginning, i reckon there's gonna be more than that in there. he does love to brag, hype himself and generally big himself up BUT i don't think he'd want to say that these were his best characters so far unless he really felt it to be true. first ish, not bad i thought. as i expected, he went for the "originals" shot once or twice when showing the housing estate, show the smart reader that he understands some of gibbons' strengths
ReplyDeletei have been thinking about all this millarstuff quite a bit. i mean, it is a major piece of (previously-missing) info to be told that the authority was written under the influence of GM, and using some of his plot elements, etc... i suppose *ultimates* later was mm's intention to prove that he could create something postmodern himself without help on the long words [although some of his hip references are fractionally out imo - generally i mean: to bring this thread back to its origins, as a martial arts student i find it very strange that mother russia would feel the need to train in krav maga, yet not mention her fundamentals in (ryabko's) systema, along with all the other spetsnaz guys 'n gals ;-) ]
anyway, still thinking about it but i do have him down as a thinker, of sorts - for me personally his work is closer in actual "new idea" content to the other "big Ms" (moore morrison miller mignola... etc ... mills, on occasion!) than, say, to that of ellis or ennis or gaiman - yet fanboys consistently deride millar as a poor man's ellis, or ennis - nah!
- but it is very very interesting, 'cos that opening story arc of the authority is the "millar" work i would take to my desert island ... precisely for its hallucinatory qualities ...
Hello cent;- there's a really interesting interview with Millar in - of all places - this month's Megazine. In it, he says a remarkable thing which, if true, says a great deal about the man. When asked about the negative response to Nemesis, he says that he guesses it was just his time. But which he seems to be saying, I know the comic was good, but obviously it was the fashion to attack Nemesis for the hell of it. If true, that shows that this is a bloke who simply doesn't see that criticism has any value whatesoever. (Nemesis was as thin and dull as it was in places offensive, but he clearly isn’t open to any such idea.) And on one hand, good for him; that self-belief has served him very well. But he does seem to think that his belief can't possibly be poor unless he can perceive the problem. By which I mean, I'm not sure his ego and his smarts can possibly be working together for his own best interest. Consequently, I'm comparatively uninterested in his own openly-expressed beliefs where his work is concerned. I don't think he's any objectivity, and I don't believe that the salesman in his soul would ever own to doubts anyway. Again, that seems perfectly fair to me; it's just that he's not a creator whose statements seem designed to work, shall we say, as objective expressions of anything beyond quite understandable and defendable self-interest.
ReplyDeleteMorrison does claim a fair degree of influence over Ultimates too, from getting MM the job to talking him through Marvel's history to advising him on how to reboot key characters.
The hip references wear me down, to be honest, though I'd certainly not have noted the martial arts problem :)
I would agree that Millar is a thinker of sorts, but he's a thinker who rarely wants to take a position. He wants to appeal to a mass of contradictory interests, and he's rarely concerned to take a strong stance which might in particular alienate his fan-laddish readers. Of course, books like Superior have an openly compassionate spine to them, but then, it's hardly a controversial stand, for all that it's laudable and necessary, to stand up for the need to respect those suffering from disabilities such as MS.
... and for their need to respect themselves, which is ultimately the point of it, don't forget. superior's is not a body simon can put on and take off by the end, after all - that's gone now.
ReplyDeletei don't agree about nemesis btw: the reason i wrote my huge rambling semi-coherent rant on amazon (now deleted - see below) was 'cos the book's misunderstood. that is a *very* dense piece of text, and he really pushes mcniven way beyond what he turned in for (say) civil war. (haven't got old man logan yet...)
i may try and salvage the article, expand it and publish it somewhere if no-one else gets the book. there were many good insights in it, it just didn't read well enough to be of use. anyway, i most certainly did not find it to be "thin" (far from it) and it wasn't dull either! i loved it right from that outrageous opening scene. we can talk about all this some other time - meanwhile, the reason i deleted the review in the end was 'cos it's (partly) based on a false assumption, namely that nemesis (character) was mm's first "gibson". of course when i got round to reading *wanted* i kicked myself... and yeah, it's typical of mm that he would be unsubtle enough to call the character himself gibson, of all things... but then he knows that most people won't have got the joke anyway. ok, so, his first "reverse gibson" is the lead in wanted, and nemesis is his fully *inverted* gibson... superior of course is his wylie, and he did (for me) succeed in finding a great angle on it. midway through #5 i was freaking out :))
haha, and yes it's interesting to hear about morrison's influence on *ultimates*, too. but y'know, he may well have required notes on the history but that one definitely reads like millar to me, simple as that. you sure you haven't dismissed him a bit too quickly? sorry, i don't mean dismissed - you're writing a friggin' book after all - but maybe judged him too quickly or too harshly..?
Hello cent:- I hope you do rework and put your thoughts on Nemesis up, and that you let me know when you do. I'm glad we're cool on disagreeing with each other, because my opinion of Nemesis is really rather low, from the plot to the womb-bombs to the art.
ReplyDeleteDismissed Millar? Quite the opposite, I hope. It's odd, because he's such a contentious subject that whatever gets written here is usually seen as evidence as an overall opinion of the bloke rather than a personal stance on a specific part of his career. I think there are some quite wonderful aspects to his career, many of which I've written about on the blog; Kick Ass I, Tales From Beyond Science, The Ultimates I and 2, the DC Secret Society of Super-Villains tale; they're all top notch. But I do think that he very often slums it, and that he doesn't take the care with his work - especially re: its ethics as they might be perceived - which his own talent deserves. And in places, I think there aspects of what he's written which are flat-out unpleasant and reactionary. It's what makes him so fascinating, because elsewhere there's material which does exactly the opposite.
I agree with you that Ultimates reads like a "mature" MM book with GM's influence, and that's especially true for the second book. It's not just one of the best super-books ever, but also one of the most important in terms of its influence, for good and ill. (Neither of which is, of course, MM's fault.)
However, you have my word - if that doesn't sound too worthy, which I fear it does - that I'll go back to Nemesis over the coming weekend and give it another spin. I've regularly changed my mind about things on the blog, I'm not sure I trust anyone whose opinions don't change in the first place. So, fingers crossed, I hope I'll find what I previously missed :)
just think thomas harris dude. the spirit of *hannibal* in particular hovers throughout and is visually referenced on numerous occasions. the *writing* also far outstrips what appears in speech bubbles and sound effects.
ReplyDeletebtw in my prev msg - 3rd para, second sentence, i meant my review; from then on, discussing only nemesis :)
ok if you've read it all already seek out chapter three, page eight and count up the different christian bale references (surely not nec to point out why he's important in the work's basic meta-context). but then that third panel, it connects roman and florentine golden age sculpture with human anatomy, simultaneously connects the divinely beautiful and the devilishly awful and thus, perfectly, captures the spirit of (shy genius) mr harris.
look i don't wanna fuck your shit up... if you are this close to publishing - and are happy for your work to get entered into a gladiatorial contest later (as in top 10!), well fine, but otherwise hold off a min and see if'n i can't persuade you... he thinks much more deeply than you credit him for, and as for ethics - this is a personal matter colin, and i suspect the concept for him (and possibly me) is rather more complex than it is for you..?
like you say - there is no problem with disagreement because i respect you, but in this instance - and don't get me wrong, even if one fully understands where the guy's intellect is coming from, there are still pretexts for dismissing his sense of humour as (at best) childishly insatiable for the same old tricks, but y'know, i tend to let him off cos he really entertains me, and he REALLY makes me think... (far more than either ellis or ennis, as prev advised!)
Hello cent;- I think we're at a horses for courses stage here, which I have no problem with, of course. Our tastes seem to diverge at this moment, which means that we're best regarded as sharing personal enthusiasms rather than debating. I've not written my Nemesis chapter yet, so that means that my final opinion is unformed, and I like things to stay that way. I always try to draw a line between my personal opinion - for want of a better word - and my final take on a subject after I've frowned out a piece in it. Everything up to that is grist to the mill, as is your enthusiasm for the work.
ReplyDelete