Tom King+Mitch Gerad To Write/Draw Mister Miracle

[millernumber1]

Regarding the open ending, I'm reminded of Evangeline Lilly's words about the controversial finale of LOST. I think this works as well in response to the finale of Mister Miracle. I'll let her speak for me:

“Well, I’m going to have to go straight to the finale. Vote of confidence, who liked the finale? [The room broke out into cheers] Who did not like the finale? [about the same amount of cheers] About 50/50. So, for those of who you didn’t like it; you loved our show, because at the end of every week, it would leave you with an impossible and pressing mystery. It would force you to the water cooler, or the dinner table, asking each other the most difficult questions. Usually philosophical questions. Sometimes questions that touched on God or religion and reality, and what it means to be human.

"And then, on the finale, you sat waiting with baited breath, thinking ‘they’re gonna give us the answer’…well, that’s what religions do. So if you want the answer to the great big question of life, go to church, go to God, find the answer, but art…art is supposed to, every time without fail, turn the question back onto you, and asks you to look at what you’re seeing, listen to what you’re hearing, experience it, and then look at it in the mirror of your soul, and figure out what it means to you.

"And so there is no one interpretation of the finale of LOST, for as many people that are in this room, there are that many true, real, endings for LOST.

"Because it’s just a reflection of who you are, and it’s the ultimate question being posed to you, not the ultimate answer being handed to you."

I think there is some truth in that, but it is also an excuse for lazy writing. Do you really think Mister Miracle is better than Omega Men and Vision because it is less coherent? And yes, I am phrasing that tendentiously, but the argument that it isn't supposed to have an answer is, to me, an argument against coherence.

[Naked Bat]

Regarding the open ending, I'm reminded of Evangeline Lilly's words about the controversial finale of LOST. I think this works as well in response to the finale of Mister Miracle. I'll let her speak for me:

“Well, I’m going to have to go straight to the finale. Vote of confidence, who liked the finale? [The room broke out into cheers] Who did not like the finale? [about the same amount of cheers] About 50/50. So, for those of who you didn’t like it; you loved our show, because at the end of every week, it would leave you with an impossible and pressing mystery. It would force you to the water cooler, or the dinner table, asking each other the most difficult questions. Usually philosophical questions. Sometimes questions that touched on God or religion and reality, and what it means to be human.

"And then, on the finale, you sat waiting with baited breath, thinking ‘they’re gonna give us the answer’…well, that’s what religions do. So if you want the answer to the great big question of life, go to church, go to God, find the answer, but art…art is supposed to, every time without fail, turn the question back onto you, and asks you to look at what you’re seeing, listen to what you’re hearing, experience it, and then look at it in the mirror of your soul, and figure out what it means to you.

"And so there is no one interpretation of the finale of LOST, for as many people that are in this room, there are that many true, real, endings for LOST.

"Because it’s just a reflection of who you are, and it’s the ultimate question being posed to you, not the ultimate answer being handed to you."

This is a beautiful answer. What I want, when I read a story, is for the story to moves me, to provoke something in me, to make methink about what it means, to stay with me long after I closed the book. which is exactly what happened with Mister Miracle. And while I really liked both Omega Men and Vision (still have to read sheriff of Babylon, probably next month), i didn't feel the same way about those works, precisely because they didn't stay with me the way MM did (although, I have to admit I'm not as attached to Vision or Omega Men to beging with, as I am with the fourth world).

That said, while it is open ended, there is a definitive ending. Scott will always escape if he wants to. That's your answer. That's your definiive ending. That's who Scott Free is.

(also, claiming having an open ending is lazy writing is not something that sounds true to me).

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I don't think the ending of Lost and Mister Miracle are comparable because one was a story the creators were making up as they went, then failed to address a lot of the ideas they'd introduced in any satisfying way, whereas the other was designed from the get go to be of limited scope and spend the entire final chapter addressing each and every possibility of what it was all about, but refusing to tell the reader exactly how to feel about it.

[iron chimp]

There has to be a definitive ending to the book. Why? Because future writers with their stories cannot be told without contradicting it or being affected by it. Is Darkseid dead? Is Granny Goodness a hero that posed as a villain? Is Orion really a sinister brother? The next person who uses Scott Free either has to ignore this book or explain it because there will 100% be more books with the New Gods.

This isn't like the spinning top in Inception where the end doesn't matter with regards to him being back with his family or asleep, because there will never be an Inception 2 and it's fine that way. The Watchmen was never supposed to have a continuation because the open ended story left it to be whatever you wanted, but then Doomsday Clock happened and Geoff Johns had to say "Peace did happen, but Rorschach's book got out".

this is an excellent point.

[Naked Bat]

Allow me to quote Doris Lessing on the matter of the definive ending and the author's intentions:

"Another way of describing the dissatisfaction of a writer when something is finished: ‘How little I have managed to say of the truth, how little I have caught of all that complexity; how can this small neat thing be true when what I experienced was so rough and apparently formless and unshaped?’"

Also and more directly related to the matter at hand:
"the book is alive and potent and fructifying and able to promote thought and discussion only when its plan and shape and intention are not understood, because that moment of seeing the shape and plan and intention is also the moment when there isn’t anything more to be got out of it."

Taken from the preface of the golden notebook. Doris Lessing was awarded the nobel prize in litterature in 2007 for ""that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny." "

I happen to think the story itself is way more important than a pontential continuity, especially considering it's a maxi-serie that, for all we know, could be out of continuity.

And now, to quote Sandman: "It is never "only a dream"".

[whiterabbit]

Regarding the open ending, I'm reminded of Evangeline Lilly's words about the controversial finale of LOST. I think this works as well in response to the finale of Mister Miracle. I'll let her speak for me:

“Well, I’m going to have to go straight to the finale. Vote of confidence, who liked the finale? [The room broke out into cheers] Who did not like the finale? [about the same amount of cheers] About 50/50. So, for those of who you didn’t like it; you loved our show, because at the end of every week, it would leave you with an impossible and pressing mystery. It would force you to the water cooler, or the dinner table, asking each other the most difficult questions. Usually philosophical questions. Sometimes questions that touched on God or religion and reality, and what it means to be human.

"And then, on the finale, you sat waiting with baited breath, thinking ‘they’re gonna give us the answer’…well, that’s what religions do. So if you want the answer to the great big question of life, go to church, go to God, find the answer, but art…art is supposed to, every time without fail, turn the question back onto you, and asks you to look at what you’re seeing, listen to what you’re hearing, experience it, and then look at it in the mirror of your soul, and figure out what it means to you.

"And so there is no one interpretation of the finale of LOST, for as many people that are in this room, there are that many true, real, endings for LOST.

"Because it’s just a reflection of who you are, and it’s the ultimate question being posed to you, not the ultimate answer being handed to you."

This isn't really comparable to Lost because they introduced many concepts that were never really explained and just made things up as they went along. This, at least, points out Scott could be dead, in another dimension, affected by the anti-life equation, or under the influence of the Lump. It would be more comparable if Lost had multiple characters tied up elsewhere and a continuing story since we know the New Gods have to show up again. So the mystique of this story is gone the moment someone has to acknowledge what happened or ignore it all together, which would mean it wasn't in continuity and just a side story. Open ended stories don't work when the baton has to be passed off.

[RJT]

This isn't really comparable to Lost because they introduced many concepts that were never really explained and just made things up as they went along. This, at least, points out Scott could be dead, in another dimension, affected by the anti-life equation, or under the influence of the Lump. It would be more comparable if Lost had multiple characters tied up elsewhere and a continuing story since we know the New Gods have to show up again. So the mystique of this story is gone the moment someone has to acknowledge what happened or ignore it all together, which would mean it wasn't in continuity and just a side story. Open ended stories don't work when the baton has to be passed off.

It’s sad that some readers treat stories like they’re baseball stats.

[millernumber1]

It’s sad that some readers treat stories like they’re baseball stats.

Wanting the story to make internal sense isn't the same as valuing continuity over quality.

[RJT]

Wanting the story to make internal sense isn't the same as valuing continuity over quality.

That it didn’t make internal sense wasn’t the complaint though...it was how this story is going to fit in with yet unwritten (and potentially never written) follow-up stories.

I wonder if the internet had been prevalent in 1986 if there would have been people complaining that Dark Knight Returns didn’t “work” because every Batman story thereafter would either be just filling time until DKR or actively contradicting the world it established.

[BatmanJones]

I think there is some truth in that, but it is also an excuse for lazy writing. Do you really think Mister Miracle is better than Omega Men and Vision because it is less coherent? And yes, I am phrasing that tendentiously, but the argument that it isn't supposed to have an answer is, to me, an argument against coherence.

Naked Bat summed up some of my answer to this. I didn't find the end of MM to be incoherent at all. I found it to be open-ended and open to interpretation.

I'm a theatre director by trade and I approach all the plays I direct the same way: these are heavy plays about heavy things. We don't have the answers and it would diminish the play not to leave every possible interpretation open to the audience so that they'll each have the best chance of drawing personal associations to their experience of life. That's what I think E. Lilly was saying and why I posted that quote even though, I agree, LOST isn't a good 1-1 comparison for Mister Miracle. The gist of her quote though is at the center of my practice.

From the beginning of my career I have refused to provide answers to audience that ask me to clarify what's meant by a play or even what happened in it. I always turn the question back to the audience and ask what they think the play meant to them. And then I tell them they're right, because they're having the only response they can have, based on what's happened in their lives.

I remember a class in playwriting school, so many years ago, in which we were studying Samuel Beckett's Endgame. At the end of the play one of the characters stands by the door ready to leave but the lights go down before we find out if he leaves (which spells death in this post-apocalyptic play and which would leave his one companion to die since he can't fend for himself) or if he stays (indicating the threat of leaving is part of a routine they go through every day).

The professor asked how many think "Clov" leaves at the end of Endgame. Half the people raised their hands. He asked how many think he stays. Half raised their hands. Then he called on my because I didn't raise my hand to either. I said something like, "The end of the play isn't an answer. It's a question. It's this question. To answer it would be to cut the play in half. I don't think Beckett knows if he stays or goes. The only answer is the question. Great art isn't interested in answers to the great questions. Great art asks the great questions of human existence; it doesn't attempt to answer them."

As for what the next writer does with the characters in Mister Miracle, that's up to them. They can do whatever they please and they're less hindered in that because the ending isn't an answer; it's a question. And because it's open to any/all interpretations it's more likely to cause diverse, personal associations.

Not trying to change anyone's mind. I never am when I post here. Art is subjective. Just trying to clarify the reason I quoted Evangeline Lilly. She could have been describing any one of the plays I directed or wrote in my 25 years of making theatre.

[millernumber1]

That it didn’t make internal sense wasn’t the complaint though...it was how this story is going to fit in with yet unwritten (and potentially never written) follow-up stories.

I wonder if the internet had been prevalent in 1986 if there would have been people complaining that Dark Knight Returns didn’t “work” because every Batman story thereafter would either be just filling time until DKR or actively contradicting the world it established.

It is what I am frustrated with. I have made no comments about continuity.

[RJT]

It is what I am frustrated with. I have made no comments about continuity.

Fair, but my initial comment wasn’t replying to you. I was responding to a comment specifically talking about the series’ connection to as yet unwritten stories.

[Spike-X]

Allow me to quote Doris Lessing on the matter of the definive ending and the author's intentions:

"Another way of describing the dissatisfaction of a writer when something is finished: ‘How little I have managed to say of the truth, how little I have caught of all that complexity; how can this small neat thing be true when what I experienced was so rough and apparently formless and unshaped?’"

Also and more directly related to the matter at hand:
"the book is alive and potent and fructifying and able to promote thought and discussion only when its plan and shape and intention are not understood, because that moment of seeing the shape and plan and intention is also the moment when there isn’t anything more to be got out of it."

Taken from the preface of the golden notebook. Doris Lessing was awarded the nobel prize in litterature in 2007 for ""that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny." "

I happen to think the story itself is way more important than a pontential continuity, especially considering it's a maxi-serie that, for all we know, could be out of continuity.

And now, to quote Sandman: "It is never "only a dream"".

"All stories are true." - Alan Moore

[Spike-X]

Wanting the story to make internal sense isn't the same as valuing continuity over quality.

They don't want it to make internal sense, though. They want it to make external sense.

[theoneandonly]

Naked Bat summed up some of my answer to this. I didn't find the end of MM to be incoherent at all. I found it to be open-ended and open to interpretation.

I'm a theatre director by trade and I approach all the plays I direct the same way: these are heavy plays about heavy things. We don't have the answers and it would diminish the play not to leave every possible interpretation open to the audience so that they'll each have the best chance of drawing personal associations to their experience of life. That's what I think E. Lilly was saying and why I posted that quote even though, I agree, LOST isn't a good 1-1 comparison for Mister Miracle. The gist of her quote though is at the center of my practice.

From the beginning of my career I have refused to provide answers to audience that ask me to clarify what's meant by a play or even what happened in it. I always turn the question back to the audience and ask what they think the play meant to them. And then I tell them they're right, because they're having the only response they can have, based on what's happened in their lives.

I remember a class in playwriting school, so many years ago, in which we were studying Samuel Beckett's Endgame. At the end of the play one of the characters stands by the door ready to leave but the lights go down before we find out if he leaves (which spells death in this post-apocalyptic play and which would leave his one companion to die since he can't fend for himself) or if he stays (indicating the threat of leaving is part of a routine they go through every day).

The professor asked how many think "Clov" leaves at the end of Endgame. Half the people raised their hands. He asked how many think he stays. Half raised their hands. Then he called on my because I didn't raise my hand to either. I said something like, "The end of the play isn't an answer. It's a question. It's this question. To answer it would be to cut the play in half. I don't think Beckett knows if he stays or goes. The only answer is the question. Great art isn't interested in answers to the great questions. Great art asks the great questions of human existence; it doesn't attempt to answer them."

As for what the next writer does with the characters in Mister Miracle, that's up to them. They can do whatever they please and they're less hindered in that because the ending isn't an answer; it's a question. And because it's open to any/all interpretations it's more likely to cause diverse, personal associations.

Not trying to change anyone's mind. I never am when I post here. Art is subjective. Just trying to clarify the reason I quoted Evangeline Lilly. She could have been describing any one of the plays I directed or wrote in my 25 years of making theatre.

that's a very thoughtful reply which indicates that you have found the story pretty engaging on a deep level.