Grant Morrison's The Green Lantern: Finale Coming

[Johnny]

Excellent analysis! I really enjoyed how this story felt like both a celebration of Hal Jordan, but also a strong commentary about how it's time for the industry to move on and evolve into something new that doesn't cling so tightly to old ideas, no matter how much we may love them. I'm not sure if that's what a lot long-time readers want to hear necessarily, but using a character like Hal Jordan was a particularly good choice for this given his long history of helping kickstart advancements within the superhero genre, from Broome & Kane's original sci-fi space cop turned beatnik to O'Neil & Adam's social commentary to Cooke's neo-classicism.

Then why is Bruce still the face of DC who they can never "move on" from, other than "cause he sells". Why is noone treating him like an "old idea" like they do Hal all the time. The Trinity themselves have been created decades before Hal Jordan, yet he is the one labeled as an example of an old idea that society should move on from. In more recent history Hal has been featured in one bad movie and people think he should be scraped off the face of the Earth, why is this logic not applied to any other character who was unfortunate enough to be the star of a movie or show that didn't work. Noone said that about Hulk after the Ang Lee movie bombed, noone said it after Daredevil 2003 and I shouldn't even start on the Fantastic Four. There are often lots of inconsistencies when it comes to people cherry-picking which character represents antiquated ideas and which doesn't. When Batman outlived the campy value of the 60s show, they brought him back to his dark roots. Why should a character like Hal Jordan be tossed aside as some antiquated idea of the 60s that isn't worth a modern audience's time. Why is he the one always directly or indirectly considered to be expandable or "standing in the way of progress".

Please don't take this as a rant of sorts, I'm legitimately perplexed about why certain characters are often treated so differently from most of their peers. It feels really hypocritical and ass-backwards to me and only seems to be creating more problems, as opposed to help solving those that are still there.

[Rikdad]

…
Then there's the meta-narrative of the Nomad Empire itself ... Cosmic Freelancers who want to come in there and build up these huge toyboxes but which corrupt the hell out of the true nature of the characters themselves. I don't think it's a surprise that they're all jacked out Neo-Nineties (almost New 52 on steroids) versions of upgrades …
[…]
But in typical Grant fashion it's not just casting villains out of a negative reflection or a kind of dark riff on his peers, including himself in the mix ... because the good characters and positive constructs come from him, too, as does that autobiographical element and passing of the torch. And in perhaps most typical Grant fashion of all ... he doesn't just leave things "quite" back in the toybox where he found them.
[…]
There's a deep read in here but it'll be some time before I get back to it.

Many great points, KJ! And there are layers to this one for sure, but you call out some very important ones. I'll be re-reading tomorrow and checking out some references to the Silver Age and… biology?!?

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Then why is Bruce still the face of DC who they can never "move on" from, other than "cause he sells". Why is noone treating him like an "old idea" like they do Hal all the time. The Trinity themselves have been created decades before Hal Jordan, yet he is the one labeled as an example of an old idea that society should move on from. In more recent history Hal has been featured in one bad movie and people think he should be scraped off the face of the Earth, why is this logic not applied to any other character who was unfortunate enough to be the star of a movie or show that didn't work. Noone said that about Hulk after the Ang Lee movie bombed, noone said it after Daredevil 2003 and I shouldn't even start on the Fantastic Four. There are often lots of inconsistencies when it comes to people cherry-picking which character represents antiquated ideas and which doesn't. When Batman outlived the campy value of the 60s show, they brought him back to his dark roots. Why should a character like Hal Jordan be tossed aside as some antiquated idea of the 60s that isn't worth a modern audience's time. Why is he the one always directly or indirectly considered to be expandable or "standing in the way of progress".

Please don't take this as a rant of sorts, I'm legitimately perplexed about why certain characters are often treated so differently from most of their peers. It feels really hypocritical and ass-backwards to me and only seems to be creating more problems, as opposed to help solving those that are still there.

Because the nature of the Green Lantern franchise has had a passing of the torch element baked into it since the introduction of Hal Jordan in '59 when a dying Abin Sur gave his ring to Hal. That has, unsurprisingly, led to plenty of new human Lanterns to carry on the mantle. Characters like Superman, Batman, & Wonder Woman are more singular characters with spin-off characters while The Flash and Green Lantern franchises have had multiple protagonists for decades.

This doesn't make Hal a bad character or outdated to me, but, like Morrison, I also understand that the superhero genre has grown past the point of the straight white male hero as the default point of view. That means that Hal Jordan's time as the main GL has come to an end for the time being in order to give the spotlight to characters who have been sorely underserved. It doesn't mean that Hal Jordan is disappearing or is no longer valued by many, but there's only a limited number of comics that DC will be publishing and a finite number of pages to showcase all the various Earth GLs.

Honestly, I feel lucky that Hal Jordan got a send-off (however temporary) this great. Morrison & Sharp clearly poured all their love and creativity into these comics. Not many characters have fared as well.

[Mutatis_Mutandis]

You know, I like Kirk but I think Hal is enormously more interesting than him, at least how Morrison writes him. He's indeed a man's man in a sense but also *not* exactly a man's man in so many other ways. He's a cosmic beatnik in a sense, and throughout Morrison's run, he criticizes shallow consumerism, earth becoming an authoritarian cesspool, the reckless pursuit of profit etc, his pansexuality as Bored has pointed out, his lack of attachment to possessions. Which is why I agreed with the assessment that he's startlingly progressive but still a mid-20th century man's man (that's not a knock - that makes him extremely interesting in my book). But it's really the ethos he represents in Morrison's run - the will to overcome insurmountable odds, fearlessness, love, etc - that makes the character timeless in my book, especially compared to a lot of other DC characters who may receive updates in terms of representation but whose ethos remain almost fundamentally conservative.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I called my friendly neighborhood comic shop yesterday afternoon and asked them to reserve a copy for me as I have a suspicion the Morrison/Sharp finale might sell out.

[charliehustle415]

Because the nature of the Green Lantern franchise has had a passing of the torch element baked into it since the introduction of Hal Jordan in '59 when a dying Abin Sur gave his ring to Hal. That has, unsurprisingly, led to plenty of new human Lanterns to carry on the mantle. Characters like Superman, Batman, & Wonder Woman are more singular characters with spin-off characters while The Flash and Green Lantern franchises have had multiple protagonists for decades.

This doesn't make Hal a bad character or outdated to me, but, like Morrison, I also understand that the superhero genre has grown past the point of the straight white male hero as the default point of view. That means that Hal Jordan's time as the main GL has come to an end for the time being in order to give the spotlight to characters who have been sorely underserved. It doesn't mean that Hal Jordan is disappearing or is no longer valued by many, but there's only a limited number of comics that DC will be publishing and a finite number of pages to showcase all the various Earth GLs.

Honestly, I feel lucky that Hal Jordan got a send-off (however temporary) this great. Morrison & Sharp clearly poured all their love and creativity into these comics. Not many characters have fared as well.

What is it about Morrison, I mean they can write one helluva ending for an iconic character.

I totally agree, the Green Lantern mythos was built around passing the torch and as time passed it developed into the Corps; a single man cannot occupy the lead position for too long lest they become a tyrant.

The Corps are a literal police force and as 90's movies have taught me good cops retire (and nearly get killed in the process).

I hear Johnny, why isn't the Batman treated the same - I think it's because he is an anomaly.

Morrison tried to write Bruce's story where he could move on, but ultimately he succumbed to the cycle of violence and death with Damian; hence the ouroboros (a snake eating its own tail).

Hal can move on, so he should because he is stronger than Bruce.

Hal's will is second to none.

[kalai]

It's interesting that the Nomad Empire use the word mass production, mass consumption.
So in a way, Nomad Empire is a living thought form of capitalism.
And in a way, the whole toy-line as weapon and upgrades can be seen as a sort of Gentrification.
Common theme as in Multiversity, the Gentry were also living thoughts and they made the world more comfortable for them to thrive by Gentrification.
So I can see the parallel with the Empty Hand and Gentry can be seen as correlated with the Golden Giants.

On the other hand, both the Golden Giants and the Athmoora are from Silver Age comics, and Morrison used them in a modernized form,
so in away, Morrison also gentrified the Silver Age comics, but I guess it can be seen as Morrison doing so on purpose to be more meta.
The whole toy-line, 90s design for Silver Age character seem to imply that the Gentry and Golden Ones are the comic industry.

[HsssH]

I think there is duality going, on one hand we have people refusing to let go and on the other hand we have people who want to modernise these old concepts. It is like a cycle feeding into itself and Hal breaks it by letting old things go.

Because the nature of the Green Lantern franchise has had a passing of the torch element baked into it since the introduction of Hal Jordan in '59 when a dying Abin Sur gave his ring to Hal. That has, unsurprisingly, led to plenty of new human Lanterns to carry on the mantle. Characters like Superman, Batman, & Wonder Woman are more singular characters with spin-off characters while The Flash and Green Lantern franchises have had multiple protagonists for decades.

In theory GL being a legacy franchise should protect these old characters from abuse, but it didn't stop Hal from getting ruined when he was "modernised" and turned into Parallax. In the end Johns managed to save him, but I wonder about Alan. It is his turn now to get "modernised", but will there be someone who would save Alan years later?

I'm also not sure what "moving on" means to Morrison. Often we hear that that we need less straight white males and in previous issue Young Guardians reveal their plans to do just that. Yet in this issue they admit that they were wrong. So what exactly does Morrison have in mind? Maybe his point is not about Hal or John or some other lantern, but about GL franchise in general?

[mrumsey]

I think there is duality going, on one hand we have people refusing to let go and on the other hand we have people who want to modernise these old concepts. It is like a cycle feeding into itself and Hal breaks it by letting old things go.



In theory GL being a legacy franchise should protect these old characters from abuse, but it didn't stop Hal from getting ruined when he was "modernised" and turned into Parallax. In the end Johns managed to save him, but I wonder about Alan. It is his turn now to get "modernised", but will there be someone who would save Alan years later?

I'm also not sure what "moving on" means to Morrison. Often we hear that that we need less straight white males and in previous issue Young Guardians reveal their plans to do just that. Yet in this issue they admit that they were wrong. So what exactly does Morrison have in mind? Maybe his point is not about Hal or John or some other lantern, but about GL franchise in general?

I think this is one of the things I find most fascinating about this issue. One could read this ending as Hal passing the torch; the notion of the old stepping aside to make way for the new. At the same time one could also read this as Hal standing tried and true above the change for the sake of change mentality and those who would claim he belongs in the past.

[Thor-Ul]

Then there's the meta-narrative of the Nomad Empire itself ... Cosmic Freelancers who want to come in there and build up these huge toyboxes but which corrupt the hell out of the true nature of the characters themselves. I don't think it's a surprise that they're all jacked out Neo-Nineties (almost New 52 on steroids) versions of upgrades ... using Omega Level, or "thought beings" explains the entire narrative of why Hal's willpower is the ultimate weapon against them, why they'd use Hammond, and why the Guardians had to resort to a newborn Next Generation to try to think creatively to fight the Ultrawar and why things like Hal and Spectre-Hal and "Beyond Death Thought" were relevant in defeating them, to be sure. As well as the cycle of Hal's various loves being a factor in his being the one able to marry love and willpower into solving the problem, and Athmoora and the Intelligence Engine and a setting of High Fantasy that mirrors the super-hero toybox but "From an older Generation" representing something that can be considered both "stagnant, or defunct ideas" lacking progress (think of the general "Whiteness" or "Maleness" of High Fantasy and how that's changing but still sticks to it a bit) but also just you know, clearly ADORING that iconography. I don't even think it's a coincidence that cool damn Prince Vespero the Wasp is you know ... a W.A.S.P.. So it's not just about Hal the Space Man moving on and letting the others take the spotlight, it's about Grant doing it too. And it doesn't feel sad, it feels triumphant. And ties up a couple of loose ends from ... man, from Countdown to Final Crisis and the Multiversity Guidebook, while it's doing so. And casts the Nomad Empire as a whole previous generation of out-of-touch comics editorial and writers who shouldn't get comebacks, and only ever come back to return to stagnant, unmoving dallies in the toyboxes that they find comfortable but won't allow to progress.

I mostly agree with you. But I am not that well versed in english, so maybe I read wrong or don't understand the Vespero point.

Because, this is Vespero as seen in TGLS2 #11:

Vespero the Wasp.jpg

[K. Jones]

I think this is one of the things I find most fascinating about this issue. One could read this ending as Hal passing the torch; the notion of the old stepping aside to make way for the new. At the same time one could also read this as Hal standing tried and true above the change for the sake of change mentality and those who would claim he belongs in the past.

It's absolutely both but to my thinking right now it doesn't feel wishy-washy or like it won't choose a side. It feels like it refuses the notion that there is a side in that argument, that it's all just the universal constant of change and churn, you just want to watch out who you're letting do the changing because dark capitalistic forces can get in there. Even "Diversity" has become a corporate buzz-word. It should happen, needs to happen - just watch out. That's kind of the vibe I got from the Guardian spirits becoming self-aware, and Hal's lecture to the Nomad Empire.

It's like, yes, Hal Jordan is tried and true - time tested. But if he doesn't get out of the way, like, none of these other GL characters are going to get to be tried and true. I'd argue that for me, John Stewart is ... but then again, when's the last time he was the title character of the headline GL book? To me he is but to Warner Media? He won't be until "'Codeword: Diversity' is required to feed the consumption machines." That's a pretty manageable level of meta.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I also think there's a lot more nuance to what Morrison is saying here than "Hal's old and needs to get out of the way for the new"

Like with anything worth talking about, it's a lot more complex than that.

[Ra-El]

Only read it once, but I think Morrison said, among a lot of other things, that while we must let new things come, we shouldn't believe that just because they are new they are better than what came before, or even different. But we should still give new things a change, without craping on the old stuff.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Only read it once, but I think Morrison said, among a lot of other things, that while we must let new things come, we shouldn't believe that just because they are new they are better than what came before, or even different. But we should still give new things a change, without craping on the old stuff.

Absolutely. This sums up Morrison's entire time at DC, so this is a perfect capper.

They should put this quote on the Omnibus from Morrison, "I read a really great article online that said 'Morrison made us love the DCU, but we fell in love with Geoff Johns instead'. He's right, I did fall in love with the DC Universe, but it fancied Geoff Johns more!"

[HsssH]

That quote sounds really good.