Friday, 24 February 2012

On Mark Millar's "Wanted " & "Secret Society Of Super-Villains" (Part 1 of 2)

In which the blogger continues his discussion of 10 comics to recommend even to the most Mark Millar-adverse of readers, which began here with Swamp Thing, and continued with Zuariel and Old Man Wolverine;

Chris Jones and Mark Stegbauer's rejection of comic-book realism for "The Secret Society Of Super Villains" strengthens scripter Mark Millar's purpose. For unlike the purposefully intimidating antagonists in JG. Jones' work on "Wanted", the super-villains of the 1998 tale are as endearingly odd as they're threatening, as amusing as they're disordered, which leaves the reader free by contrast to distrust the intimidatingly powerful ubermenschs of the Justice League.  (There's something of a smart nod to the first team-up of the super-people in 'Crisis On Infinite Earths" #1, pages 26-27 in the above, and that's true down even to factors such as the figures on the balconeys and the casual chit-chat among characters who're rarely seen together as the main event threatens to begin.)
            
It's a shame that the 10 page The Secret Society Of Super-Villains feature from 1998's JLA 80-page Giant won't ever, for obvious reasons, be collected together with Wanted. Because in so many ways the former reads as a prequel to Mark Millar and J. G. Jones' deliberately provocative tale of how the whipped Wesley Gibson is converted to the do-as-you-will side of the hero/villain divide. For all that it's an in-continuity, comics-code authorised, and apparently throw-away extra feature placed nearer the back than the front of the book it appears in, Millar's The Secret Society Of Super-Villains is a genuinely thought-stirring story of an Earth that's apparently falling under the control of an authoritarian superhero elite. It more than explains why the DCU's super-villains would bind together as an army to entirely eliminate their opposite numbers, and because of that, it appears to begin the story of the criminal seizure of the globe which serves as the backdrop to the events of Wanted, where such a rebellion has succeeded in wiping reality free of the very idea of the super-hero. (*1) Because of this, it's hard not to believe that the universe of Wanted and that of Secret Society are really one and the same, with the names and the faces changed just enough to save Millar from a we'll-take-your-own-eyes-too law-suit. After all, the characters in Wanted are nearly all precise analogues of DC's own trademarked-to-the-hilt properties, and much of the force of its narrative relies upon the reader recognising, for example, that it's really Superman who's been left brain-damaged and tragically abandoned in a home, and that it's truly Batman and Robin who've been shown being fed to a giant octopus. (*2)

         
*1:- Of course, Millar also tried to pitch a Secret Society of Super Villains series to DC at the turn of the millennium, and that proposal eventually became "Wanted". It's something which we'll turn to in the second part of this piece.
*2:- The date that Millar gives in "Wanted" for the extermination of the superheroes - 1986 - suggests that what we're seeing there is the fate of the pre-Crisis DCU. It's tempting to wonder whether the transformation in "Wanted" of the universe by the triumphant super-villains isn't a writerly comment on the DCU of the post-Crisis period. ("By morning, all the magic in the world had gone ...") Certainly the young Millar expressed in the UK fanzines of the late Eighties a disillusionment with the grim'n'gritty super-comics of the period. A long-shot of an idea, of course, which is why it's here, in italics, in a foot-note.) 

The success of Millar's super-heroes in dominating the ideas of their culture as well as its streets and air-lanes is shown in how even the children of their opponents play with toys of Superman and Batman, at war with Darkseid, in front of their parents.
          
The plot of The Secret Society Of Super-Villains is a transparently straight-forward one. The JLA have reformed, and the story begins with Superman announcing to the world that;

"A permanent watchtower has been erected on the moon with surveillance equipment unlike anything the world has seen for maximum global security. Your leaders have given us authorization to ... "

His sentences are loaded with words which we might more normally associate with state oppression; "surveillance", "permanent watchtower", "maximum global security", "authorization". To the less conservative mind that's experienced the consequences of the War On Terror in the wake of  9/11, the Justice League's global mandate to endlessly intrude into everyone's privacy in order to serve the greater good carries a sense of the profoundest unease. When Superman states that "The basic philosophy behind the new league is zero tolerance of all super-crime. A radical membership drive has been launched to increase (the JLA's) numbers so that Earth can be protected more effectively ..", the reader becomes immediately aware that such a policy involves the League perpetually overseeing everyone else's business at every level while endlessly expanding its own numbers. The JLA will be forever watching from their secret base high above the world in what's effectively a new nation-state existing quite independently of any Earthly power, and whose self-selecting citizens will be endlessly primed to descend on even the slightest crime which they define as unacceptable. As Per Degaton quite convincingly argues, "Democracy has just been given a death sentence. The world has a new cabal of masters now."

Part of Millar's success in partially shifting the reader's sympathy away from the Justice League lies in his decision to place apparent liberal sympathies into the mouths of super-villains who are of course anything but liberal. Yet it's entirely feasible that Per Degaton would view the power of the new Justice League in such a political sense. He's not suggesting that democracy is a system he supports, but rather expressing his belief that the human race had just lost the choice to choose which of the two classes of super-rulers it wanted to grovel to.
          
It was of course Grant Morrison's 1997 reboot of the Justice League which Millar was playing with here, and it's notable how very different the two men's take on the same situation is. As with his scripts for Wanted from five years later, Millar was constantly encouraging the reader to view events at least in part from the perspective of the catastrophically anti-social. Where Morrison consistently, and deliberately, presented the JLA as gods, as noble creatures who by their very nature occupied the ethically laudable uplands of virtue (*2), Millar encourages us to see them as the super-villains would, as fascists imposing terror rather than order upon a defenceless world. It's not just that Millar is suggesting the perspective of the likes of Deadshot and Crazy Quilt might be closer than we might expect to our own: he's also challenging Morrison's view that the Justice League could ever be regarded as an implicitly and entirely benign organisation. Until the tale's conclusion, the superheroes of the DCU are a constantly-seen presence intimidating their fearful opponents at a distance, They declare their intentions through the media while the various members of the Secret Society sit with their children, or bed down as lovers, or congregate and gossip on roof-tops beneath colourful advertising billboards declaring that "The League Is Here For You!". There is, it's being made apparent, no escape from the new pro-active Justice League Of America, and no-one to ensure that the JLA fulfill their mandate in an ethical fashion.

*2:- With the exception of The Huntress, and the occasional hissy-fit from Orion, of course.

             
There's a great deal of the totalitarian in the JLA's determination to stamp out the threat of super-human crime. When Amos Fortune is shown discussing "supervillain clearances" that have been "organised on this scale", it's impossible not to wonder about the League's means and ends. For what's being transmitted is the sense that there's a new world order which cares little for traditional notions of politics and law, and which might not care for any long-established notions of due process. Even when the League finally bursts into the narrative as actors rather than distant presences, they're shown to us as arrogant, terrifying bullies, sneering at their prey, smiling at their suffering, hammering their enemies into unconsciousness. That the Martian Manhunter had infiltrated the Society disguised as Brain Wave and entrapped the super-villains accordingly, inciting them to a murderous assault on the Watchtower before smilingly enjoying their capture, only makes the whole business feel all the more disturbing. What the Manhunter is doing there is redolent of an agent provocateur in spirit if not fact, and regardless of the fact that the super-villains are guilty of conspiracy to murder at the very least, there's a sense that the difference between right and wrong isn't anything like as clear as Grant Morrison's work in the period would have us believe.

Of course, Millar's skill here lies in how he has us sympathise with human beings who'd never care to sympathise with us, and it's that deliberate misdirection which we'll return to next time.

The world in "Wanted" after the super-villains have taken over, with all the silver age colour and magic gone.
        
To be concluded on Sunday 26th February;

The Martian Manhunter unsettlingly enjoys watching the members of the Secret Society get theirs.
  
.

10 comments:

  1. You always hear from certain Leaguers about how they need to be more proactive, indeed that was the supposed mandate to justify the uh, I guess next to latest Outsiders team, as well as being the rallying cry of Green Lantern (amongst others) during "Cry for Justice".

    Even during the best of times the super heroes get accused of fascism, or at the VERY least throwing out the window the rights of the accused, but we can easily deal because we're right there with Batman in the scene, we also see the murderous gleam in the Joker's eyes, and we know Batman has to act.

    But that's a very different situation from the self appointed earth surveillance brigade presented in this Millar back-up, and it is definitely disturbing. Man, I really need to get my copy of Squadron Supreme back from my buddy, that book dove into these issues beautifully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Isaac:- I always start to shiver when I hear super-heroes talk about being pro-active. Cry for justice indeed.

      "but we can easily deal because we're right there with Batman in the scene, we also see the murderous gleam in the Joker's eyes, and we know Batman has to act.

      That's a really good point, and it raises the point of whether the rise in the number of psycopathic super-villains over the past few decades has been used as a way to excuse super-heroes behaving in ways which are clearly unethical. By emphasising THEIR danger, the tyranny of the super-heroes becomes excusable, and often, it seems, invisable. One of the reasons why I so admire Knight & Squire; it faces up to those issues and refuses to let the threat of the Joker excuse any illegality on the hero's path.

      Millar's take on Morrison's JLA really is disturbing, you're right. There's the excuse that the world's governments have somehow empowered the JLA, and yet we never once see any kind of over-sight, regulation and so on. Without that, the JLA really are effectively tyrannts, no matter how benign. I wonder how Morrison's new 'political' Superman will end up dealing with the radical issues which he's said it will involve. (I didn't mean that in a snotty way. I'm genuingly interested how it'll pan out.)

      Your last sentence made me want to dig out my old Squadron Supreme tpb :) And I will too ..

      Delete
  2. Speaking of Morrison's latest Superman foray, there was one back up story (not written by Morrison, but surely he has some sort of veto power here..) where Clark is thinking about his time growing up in Smallville. At one point he reflects on some "words of wisdom" from Pa Kent that was a very failed attempt at Uncle Ben style inspiration: "Clark there are a lot of bullies out there, that think they can get away with anything because they're stronger or richer than other people."

    In my review of that issue I couldn't help but point out the fact that Superman and Batman most assuredly think they can get away with most anything, each fitting into that "stronger or richer" category.

    As far as my beloved Morrison era league being tyrants, I take solace in the fact that I can't think of them as doing much with their surveillance beyond being made aware of huge disasters they could help out with, responding to earthquakes and alien invasions and the like. Of course that being the case they could probably have saved some dollars and just kept an eye on CNN or something.

    It's only ever when we get to Superman, or someone similarly powered fighting everyday human criminals, that the tyrant slur falls into use again.

    This reminds me: Colin, have you read any of Mark Waid's "Irredeemable" book? I've read the first two trades, and it's a fantastic love letter to Superman, illustrating how amazing he is by comparison to the irredeemable character in question, a Superman pastiche called the Plutonian who goes evil for a number of interesting reasons, chiefly I'd say because of the immense pressure he felt from a world that expected him to be perfect all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Isaac:- I read that tale, though I wasn't sharp enough to reflect on the point you latched onto. It's undeniable that both characters do consider themselves largely above the law, and that becomes more and more obvious as the years pass. Simply not believing in murder doesn't constitute following the law, although super-books love to work on the premise that it does.

      "Of course that being the case they could probably have saved some dollars and just kept an eye on CNN or something."

      :)

      I suppose the key point about the Morrison JLA is that they ARE tyrants whether they choose to act as such or not. They stand outside of the laws which bind the rest of us and they get to express their own power with a phenomenal degree of latitude.

      I was given the Irredeemable HB for Christmas, actually. And I did enjoy it, with a few reservations about the density of the storytelling. I could've done with a touch more bang for my bucks. But that shouldn't obscure the fact that it's often a really fine book, and I'm actually far more comfortable with its fallable super-heroes than I am with the typical super-hero. You're right that it functions as a love-letter to Mark Waid's beloved Superman. I suspect that some future college course will have a compare'n'contrast essay for its students based on All-Star Superman and Irredemable. (There's a blog in that!)

      Delete
  3. That's an interesting thought, that of the JLA as tyrants whether they choose to act as such or not. With Superman for instance, a police force could never lock him up (forgetting for the moment some combination of red sun projector/kryptonite bars scenario). Superman could willingly allow himself to be hand cuffed, to sit in the back of a police cruiser, and with even a slight, thoughtless gesture, "Oh, Great Scott! I'm free!" (nearly this exact scene was played in this weeks Aquaman, though of course it was a deliberate bid for freedom and the right to nearly kill a disturbed man as performed by Mera, or as the stupid landlubbers know her, "Aquawoman")

    I thought that was an interesting idea, but it could just be me talking in circles as ever.

    You may be right about Irredeemable lacking in bang for your buck (I'm really glad you've read it, by the way), I was fortunate enough to find a library copy to read, and without having to deal with any bitterness over having to pay for something too light I could focus my energies bemoaning the fact that after it was all read I wanted more. Where's more? what's next?!?!? <-which is, on its own, very much the kind of feeling a writer would like to ellicit from his or her readers.

    Man I would love an All Star Superman vs. Irredeemable blog from toobusythinking, that'd be great fun to read!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Isaac:- There is a point where power becomes license, isn't there, and only the most remarkable individual will be able to resist abusing the situation. And if Superman doesn't abuse the situation, you can be very sure that a great many others of the JLA'ers will. It's just not feasible that there'd be anymore than a few nobly untypical human beings in such a crowd of folks. Combined with that is the fact that the League's new mandate is clearly undemocratic. There certainly wasn't the time or resources for an international plebiscite to OK the new super-national procedures. Who do the League report to? Who functions as the ombudsman? Which court of appeal applies? Which national laws apply to what situations? No, Morrison's League is, as expressed in Millar's story, a tyranny, and little else. Yep, the Squadron Supreme is definitely a relevant text here :)

      I hope I didn't give the impression that Irredeemable was exceptionally thin. I really don't think so. I felt it tended to be a few pages-worth light of content most times out, but that doesn't mean that I think it's anything other than a good book. And you're absolutely right, the WHAT-NEXT! factor is brilliantly present in each and every issue of the book.

      An All-Star Superman vs. Irredeemable blog on TooBusy? Thank you for the generous words, but how did I somehow end up volunteering for something? I thought you were going to do it :) If it's of any interest at all, I definitely do intend to take the chance to discuss Irredeemable, and I guess you've given me something to think about there.

      Delete
  4. Huh. I always knew that there was a rejected "Secret Society" pitch that somehow evolved into "Wanted," but I didn't know that Millar had actually written a "Secret Society" story. Interesting. Now I'm going to have to track this down...

    Though I think it's in the second part of the article, I think you made a very astute comment about superhero fiction, about how it often operates on the assumption that the politics of the fictional world must be much like ours even though that couldn't possibly be true: assuming a position above and outside of normal morality simply because you are strong and believe yourself to be right does not make a hero; it makes a tyrant who may accomplish something noble. In superhero fiction, being the over-man is usually the sign of purity and lack of corruption, when realistically it would be AT BEST a serious moral compromise with yourself and the world you live in, if you were truly a good (wo)man with that kind of power.

    I think it's also interesting that this would have been written while Millar and Morrison were still good buddies and constantly bouncing ideas off of each other. It definitely fits in with the ideas of Morrison's JLA-as-Gods theme, while looking at it from a different angle. And as much as I love a lot of Morrison's "JLA," it does conveniently avoid looking at his Superhero Pantheon from any angle where the less glamorous side to it might be seen. They spend all their time fighting celestial invaders and larger-than-life super-villains. the only time we see the affect they have on the general populace is the "and now you all have super-powers!" conclusion to the Maggeddon arc.

    And I'm going to have to second the idea of a "Irredeemable vs All-Star" examination. Might have to do one of those myself...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Adam:- "Now I'm going to have to track this down..."

      I think it's a smart little story and I'm particularly impressed by how he manipulates the reader into feeling just a touch of sympathy for a pack of monsters.

      "In superhero fiction, being the over-man is usually the sign of purity and lack of corruption, when realistically it would be AT BEST a serious moral compromise with yourself and the world you live in, if you were truly a good (wo)man with that kind of power."

      Of course, the problem is that the ratio of really good people to the rest of us is incredibly small. And by "really good", I mean saintly. Whereas the ratio of psychopaths to the rest of us is incredibly high; 1% of Americans, according to Robert Hare, and that's a figure which is higher in neighbourhoods with high degrees of social problems. The odds are against the DCU ending up with any more than just a few super-people who can resist the advantages which the illict use of power can bring.

      "I think it's also interesting that this would have been written while Millar and Morrison were still good buddies and constantly bouncing ideas off of each other. It definitely fits in with the ideas of Morrison's JLA-as-Gods theme, while looking at it from a different angle."

      It is interesting, isn't it, because it obviously deals with issues which Morrison didn't want to pursue in his JLA. By that, I don't mean that it marks any evidence of discord between them. It's just notable that their approaches are so different. I wonder if they discussed the story.

      "the only time we see the affect they have on the general populace is the "and now you all have super-powers!" conclusion to the Maggeddon arc."

      I thoroughly enjoyed the first year and a half of the Morrison JLA, and quite enjoyed what followed. But Morrison's refusal to pay any sunstantial attention to the fact of power and its almost inevitable consequences does wear me down after awhile. To say that isn't to suggest that he was written a host of fantastic books. It's just a point where his taste and mine part company.

      "And I'm going to have to second the idea of a "Irredeemable vs All-Star" examination. Might have to do one of those myself..."

      Thank you. And if and when you take a stab at that, do let me know. I'd love to read it :)

      Delete
  5. I read the first trade of Irredeemable, and I liked it okay. It did seem a little thin, as you said, Colin - just didn't seem to have enough substance, almost felt a little more like a Millar book than a Waid - though maybe that's just because his villainous protagonist also looks like Eminem.

    I did like the take on Lois, and the response a less charitable version of her would have on Kent's Superman reveal, but again, I thought Busiek did it better in Astro City. And the Bat-villain takeoffs were nice, but they didn't stick around enough to really have much of an impact. Maybe it gets better after the setup. But for my two cents, I'd say I prefer Invincible for the "Superman analogue goes bad" story - when it happens there, there's an emotional impact, because you've already gotten emotionally attached to the characters and world involved.

    The Authority is kind of the logical extreme of the JLA as fascists idea, exploring the question of what if they just admitted it already, and would the honesty maybe be better than that endless hemming and hawing the Justice League seemed to do in the Dwayne McDuffie days?

    Of course, the Under New Management arc, where they really start to meddle directly in Earthly affairs, is written by Millar (possibly Morrison?), which makes that whole thing more interesting by half.

    I haven't really read any of Morrison's JLA besides Earth 2, and again, I liked it, but it didn't jump out at me as outstanding. Quitely's art is, of course, magnificent, but he could illustrate a phonebook and I'd take it out of the library.

    The JLA as Gods idea though, seems like it inevitably would have to cut both ways. After all, the ancient gods of myth, the Greek, Roman, Norse gods, all were pretty much by the definition fascistic. If Zeus wanted to have sex with a woman, he'd turn into a horse and do it, because he was the law. I wonder how Morrison could write them as gods without taking into account the amoral capriciousness of mythological gods.

    I guess one taking-off point for Irredeemable vs All-Star would be that they both kind of kick off with Kent revealing his identity to Lois, and what effect their respective cowardice and fragility or compassion and understanding has on the rest of the world.

    Another great take on the post-reveal is Tom Zahler's truly excellent Love and Capes, of which a huge chunk is available online for free (start reading here: http://www.loveandcapes.com/readit/lnc0101.html ). He eschews the typical storm-und-drang of superheroics for a more down-to-earth sitcom-type relationship story, and it's quite charming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Historyman:- You raise a good point, in that there are so many different riffs on Superman that it becomes hard to appreciate any individual one. We’re forever comparing one with another, from Supreme to Superior to Astro City, from Invincible to Irredeemable and so on, and I suppose that’s unavoidable. They all take their part in a great meta-hubbub, but it makes it hard for any one product to exist in its own right.

      “The Authority is kind of the logical extreme of the JLA as fascists idea, exploring the question of what if they just admitted it already, and would the honesty maybe be better than that endless hemming and hawing the Justice League seemed to do in the Dwayne McDuffie days?”

      I like to think there’s something between the one and the other. (Knowing a little of the way DM was treated during his JL run, I tend not to see his issues as reflecting what he could achieve without the meddling.) The whole idea of power and its temptations ought – in my entirely unimportant opinion – be something which is constantly referenced in the super-book. That’s not, I would emphasise, what the industry and a great deal of its audience would agree with, so I know it seems to be a po-faced opinion.

      “Of course, the Under New Management arc, where they really start to meddle directly in Earthly affairs, is written by Millar (possibly Morrison?), which makes that whole thing more interesting by half.”
      And more confused too …

      “I haven't really read any of Morrison's JLA besides Earth 2, and again, I liked it, but it didn't jump out at me as outstanding. Quitely's art is, of course, magnificent, but he could illustrate a phonebook and I'd take it out of the library.”

      The first 15 or so issues are the ones to head for. I think they’re essential reading for the super-book, both in their own right and for the way that Morrison, along with Waid and Peyer and Millar a few others, took the grim’n’gritty merchants on in the nineties.

      “The JLA as Gods idea though, seems like it inevitably would have to cut both ways. After all, the ancient gods of myth, the Greek, Roman, Norse gods, all were pretty much by the definition fascistic. If Zeus wanted to have sex with a woman, he'd turn into a horse and do it, because he was the law. I wonder how Morrison could write them as gods without taking into account the amoral capriciousness of mythological gods.”

      Right. That’s the question to start off with you get to interview GM about his JLA days.

      “I guess one taking-off point for Irredeemable vs All-Star would be that they both kind of kick off with Kent revealing his identity to Lois, and what effect their respective cowardice and fragility or compassion and understanding has on the rest of the world.”
      It’s time for that Historyman blog we’ve mentioned before. It IS a good starting poin.

      “Another great take on the post-reveal is Tom Zahler's truly excellent Love and Capes, of which a huge chunk is available online for free (start reading here: http://www.loveandcapes.com/readit/lnc0101.html ). He eschews the typical storm-und-drang of superheroics for a more down-to-earth sitcom-type relationship story, and it's quite charming.”

      Thank you, Historyman. I shall chase up the kind recommendation.

      Delete