Talking GRANT MORRISON

[Cipher]

I feel all of New X-Men is about recursiveness, not only in the direct way you mention but also in a more meta way about editorial cowardice and elevation of the status quo above telling new stories. Which is I suppose frelling hilarious when you figure what happened two months after Morrison left.

Yeah, definitely. There are two elements at play: The in-story conflict of Sublime/stagnancy vs. the potential for change the X-Men represent (even on an individual level, hence its ending with Scott deciding to move forward), and the meta-commentary of comic-book recursiveness he returns to in his Batman run, with Magneto's revisited schemes, Marc Silvestri, another bad future plot, etc. You're also right that the motif is there from the very first issue, opening with Cassandra showing the Trask descendant a Neanderthal conflict and warning it will happen again.

That interplay is what makes the run such a rousing success for me. I also think it's a missing element from his Batman run, where it becomes, as I said earlier, a little on-the-nose without a strong real-world message to accompany it.

[Sousa]

It seems like his run on Batman is either love it or hate it. I've never read it, I want to read it but am a little hesitant to commit a lot of time and money toward his run. Can anyone explain a little as to why its either amazing or not so?

[Cipher]

It seems like his run on Batman is either love it or hate it. I've never read it, I want to read it but am a little hesitant to commit a lot of time and money toward his run. Can anyone explain a little as to why its either amazing or not so?

To me it's one of his worst examples of sacrificing characters for a high-concept plot. Only, I find, it's not a plot with much worthwhile to say. It's a study of Batman and recursiveness in comics about ... Batman and recursiveness in comics. Lots of meta-posturing without any really layered themes. The characters are archetypes, which might be fair given the material, but the dialogue on display is also some of his most stilted for whatever reason.

There are moments I appreciate, and I love his all-in-continuity approach as well as the decision to tailor a story around Batman that's a bit more mystery-oriented and puzzle-based than usual. I just don't find it very effective in execution.

That's coming more from the "hate it" side, though that's probably too strong a word. It has plenty of devotees; your mileage may vary.

EDIT --

The one lens through which I do really appreciate it is as an ending to Post-Crisis Batman. In that way it works well enough. It's as a work on its own that it leaves me cold.

[General Nerditry]

I started his Batman, but I dropped it fairly early. I don't know, his later stuff seems more deliberately Morrisonny for lack of a better word. Like it's too obviously put on and forced which I guess agrees with what you're saying about it.

[t hedge coke]

To me it's one of his worst examples of sacrificing characters for a high-concept plot. Only, I find, it's not a plot with much worthwhile to say. It's a study of Batman and recursiveness in comics about ... Batman and recursiveness in comics. Lots of meta-posturing without any really layered themes. The characters are archetypes, which might be fair given the material, but the dialogue on display is also some of his most stilted for whatever reason.

I don't see that sacrificing of character, at all. Everyone has idiosyncrasies, respond as individuals with personalities, histories, hobbies, dynamics and relationships. Dick, Damian, Bruce, and Babs all use computers differently, from games to messageboards. Dick and Damian enjoy different dietary preferences. Sheba and Gaucho are both presented with personalities, histories, relationships, both primary and secondary motivations. It's the only time I think Harley's been actually written with the mental illness and violent abuse in full light.

There is symbolism, too, but just "too."

[Bradley]

Morrison's X-Men remains a personal favorite, not just for the meta-commentary about the X-Men themselves, but also because it really feels of its moment to me. That is to say, I feel like Morrison was very much exploring some of our early 21st century concerns about youth culture, terrorism, and mass destruction. I like that the X-Men refer to themselves as "mutant rescue" (or something like that-- I don't have the book in front of me) and that they seem more like first responders and teachers than the paramilitary force they had been for much of the 90s. As the world seemed like it was becoming a much scarier place than it had been, I felt like Morrison was suggesting an alternative to meeting violence with violence, promoting pacifism through superhero adventure and giving readers a reason to hope for a brighter future.

[titansupes]

He's hit and miss for me, too, but... I can't even fathom how much I love All-Star Superman. Seriously. It's beyond perfect for me. For that book alone, Morrison's one of the 'greats' in my mind.

I really liked New X-Men, though admittedly, I did find all the talk of 'consciousness' and 'thought weapons' and whatnot very grating at times. Sometimes the characters felt too Morrison and not enough X-Men. I'm looking forward to reading it again at some point, now that I have an idea of what to expect.

I've had the Animal Man omnibus on the shelf since it came out, but I've got such a reading backlog that it's still going to be a while before I get to it. I have Batman: Arkham Asylum deluxe on pre-order, I can not friggin' wait for Wonder Woman: The Trial of Diana Prince (aka Earth One) and I'm looking forward to Multiversity (though I hope it's not like Final Crisis, which I did not enjoy).

Oh, I also have the Batman: The Black Glove/Batman & Son deluxe. I really enjoyed B&S, not so much the other arcs in the book. Again, I found them too 'Morrison', not enough Batman. But I may try again.

[Flash Gordon]

THE INVISIBLES stands as my favorite comic books, and one of my favorite books period. One of the most important books I've ever read.

[Sousa]

To me it's one of his worst examples of sacrificing characters for a high-concept plot. Only, I find, it's not a plot with much worthwhile to say. It's a study of Batman and recursiveness in comics about ... Batman and recursiveness in comics. Lots of meta-posturing without any really layered themes. The characters are archetypes, which might be fair given the material, but the dialogue on display is also some of his most stilted for whatever reason.

There are moments I appreciate, and I love his all-in-continuity approach as well as the decision to tailor a story around Batman that's a bit more mystery-oriented and puzzle-based than usual. I just don't find it very effective in execution.

That's coming more from the "hate it" side, though that's probably too strong a word. It has plenty of devotees; your mileage may vary.

EDIT --

The one lens through which I do really appreciate it is as an ending to Post-Crisis Batman. In that way it works well enough. It's as a work on its own that it leaves me cold.

Hmm, thats interesting. So I guess its more of a take it one story at a time type thing instead of going all in right away?

[dupersuper]

I prefer his earlier stuff, but he can still be great.

[Hypestyle]

I'd like to see him write some out-of-continuity-worry-free stories involving: Black Panther, Spider-Man, Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Blade, Luke Cage & Iron Fist.

[Cipher]

I don't see that sacrificing of character, at all. Everyone has idiosyncrasies, respond as individuals with personalities, histories, hobbies, dynamics and relationships. Dick, Damian, Bruce, and Babs all use computers differently, from games to messageboards. Dick and Damian enjoy different dietary preferences. Sheba and Gaucho are both presented with personalities, histories, relationships, both primary and secondary motivations. It's the only time I think Harley's been actually written with the mental illness and violent abuse in full light.

There is symbolism, too, but just "too."

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on how well that was all conveyed, then.

My chief issue is that I didn't feel the characters were fully rounded or given idiosyncrasies enough to shine through. I certainly feel it never quite has the characterization or great back-and-forths, say, New X-Men does (which is probably a fair run to compare it to).

Maybe I owe it another chronological read, though.

[Orpheus]

If not for the promise of Morrison on Batman I would have dropped the Batman books after the first issue of One Year Later.

I didn't think One Year Later was good either

[t hedge coke]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on how well that was all conveyed, then.

My chief issue is that I didn't feel the characters were fully rounded or given idiosyncrasies enough to shine through. I certainly feel it never quite has the characterization or great back-and-forths, say, New X-Men does (which is probably a fair run to compare it to).

Maybe I owe it another chronological read, though.

To each their own, naturally. Morrison didn't do too many lengthy conversations during his run, but if can tell you different characters drives and goals, their dietary and entertainment habits, dialogue tics, the idiosyncratic way they relate to a common acquaintance, or how they feel about animals, money, and class structures... that's a lot of characterization.

Morrison's Grayson throws himself into complications but worships both Alfred and Bruce, calls Alfred "Alfie" and Jim Gordon "Commisioner," loves spicy foods, studied Shakespeare and theater as a boy, has less patience with Talia and less awe at the mystique of the Joker than Bruce does. He's uncomfortable with money, doesn't see the Wayne fortune as his. He easily feels restrained and bucks against that.

Bits and pieces of that are borrowed from other sources, but Morrison put them together in his own way, and exhibits them on-panel as scenes progress. There's a lot of showing characterization rather than having characters say their characterization.

[Pól Rua]

In general, I like his work, whether it's the more outre stuff (Invisibles, Filth, Mystery Play, Seaguy), or straight-up storytelling (We3, All-Star Superman, New X-Men).
'Seven Soldiers' was just glorious. Like a great big lovely pinata crammed full of wonderful things just waiting for me to wallop it with my brane-stick.

However, even when his work falls flat to me, I can still dig that he's genuinely interested in putting something out that's intriguing, thought-provoking and interested in pushing new ground. And yeah, Zenith was the duck's doo-dahs.