Monday, February 19, 2018

Final Crisis Retro Review Part III: The Monitor Plot

We Don't Get It

A major fraction of Final Crisis is devoted to the subplot I'll call the Monitor plot. Based on Marv Wolfman's characters who are central to Crisis on Infinite Earths, the Monitors are beings who monitor activity in the 52 Earths of the Multiverse. The Monitors go through a great deal of drama on their own plane, interacting with beings in the Multiverse on a few occasions. The Monitor plot consists of a few scenes in Final Crisis proper, plus the entire two issues of Superman Beyond. In this third and final installment of my FC review that begins here, I'll focus on the mysterious Monitor plot.

It's easy enough to understand the Monitor plot on the surface level: Who says and does what, when. It is much harder to understand what the point of it all is: Why are these things happening? How does it relate to the Darkseid plot? What rules are at work? What is Morrison trying to say with this story?

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I don't think readers, overall, "got" the Monitor plot, at least not in detail. I think for some readers, the portions of the Monitor plot in FC proper were a path to nowhere: A lot of things happening, some of them apparently very important, but with no clarity as to what was happening or why, or what it meant. Reading online reviews, I find some readers regretting FC's complexity and indecipherability. Some readers seem overall pleased with FC, but discuss only the Darkseid plot, as though the Monitor plot just didn't happen. And though many very astute readers pierce the veil of allegory and get a general read on Morrison's overall intentions, they still seem, as I did, doubtful about the details, such as who, exactly, does Mandrakk represent? We had no explanation as to the Whys of this story: Why does this stuff happen? Even the cause-and-effect relationship between the Darkseid plot and the Monitor plot seems like a riddle: Did Darkseid's attack somehow prompt Mandrakk's attack on Superman? Or did Mandrakk's desire to attack somehow use Darkseid as his pawn? And Morrison once said that when we read Final Crisis we will realize why this is the final crisis: Did anyone come away with that understanding in concrete terms?

Between 2009 and 2017, I re-read Final Crisis many times. I enjoyed many portions, particularly, the Big Five superheroes' victories in the Darkseid plot, and I grasped, in general terms, how the Monitor plot illustrated Superman's victory on some high cosmic level, but the pieces didn't fit together very well, and I felt that something remained unexplained. Then, something clicked. I saw a pattern on one page that seemed to fit, and when I considered wider portions of the story, those seemed to fit as well. I believe there's a key to Final Crisis' Monitor plot, and once one sees it, the whole story becomes more explicable: One can see Morrison's intended message, and the logic of the Monitor plot goes from murky and arbitrary to exceedingly clear. Ultimately, one can see not only why Mandrakk appears after Darkseid's defeat, but understand that the choice of page and even the exact panel where he appears are not arbitrary. I hope that those who read this post will find Final Crisis much clearer than they found it before, and that they see the final showdown with Mandrakk to be a remarkable climax in its own right, one of the most thrilling victories of Superman and his allies.


Just The Facts

There is a surface level to the Monitor plot, in which the Monitors are powerful beings in the DC Multiverse. As the surface level is fairly clear and the basis of the deeper level, I'll begin by laying out its facts.

In the distant past, a group of Monitors, initially one and then more, began to oversee the Multiverse. Long ago, the best of them, Dax Novu, became corrupt and, as the hideous evil Monitor, Mandrakk, was exiled to a crypt where he must wait for a Doomsday Clock to reach zero.

A surreptitiously evil Monitor named Rox Ogama frames a good, young Monitor named Nix Uotan for the destruction of his world, Earth-51. Disguising his own guilt, Ogama pretends to defend Uotan. Uotan, to the chagrin of his lover, Weeja Dell, is punished by being exiled to the "germ world" of Earth-0. A Monitrix named Zillo Valla consoles Weeja Dell, offering a brief summary of how contact with the germ worlds have introduced time and story, beginnings and endings, amongst the Monitors themselves. Uotan lives as an ordinary young man on Earth-0, trying to regain his previous status.

Zillo Valla summons several of the Multiverse's Supermen to help her and her world escape the wrath of Mandrakk. After a chase through Multiversal space, leading to Limbo, the Supermen find an infinite book that contains all stories, including the history of the Monitors mentioned above. Ultraman, who celebrates evil, triumphantly announces that the book ends with destruction: Evil wins in the end. Superman, joins his opposite, Ultraman, in inhabiting a Thought Robot in the Overvoid. In this form, Superman defeats Mandrakk, who recklessly destroys Zillo Valla during the battle.

Captain Marvel voyages the Multiverse, eventually joining up with the Question, Renee Montoya, to form a cavalry of all the Supermen. Rox Ogama transforms into a new incarnation of Mandrakk and recruits Ultraman, transforming him into a Vampire Superman.

Rounded up during Darkseid's occupation of Earth, Uotan is transformed into a new kind of Monitor/hero dubbed the "Judge of All Evil." When Darkseid is defeated, Mandrakk and Ultraman arrive to confront Superman, having just dispatched Supergirl, the Radiant, and the Spectre. Superman activates the Miracle Machine and fixes all the damage done by Darkseid's forces. The Supermen of the Multiverse arrive along with Hal Jordan's force of Green Lanterns. Nix Uotan takes over, summoning an army of angels, the animal heroes led by Captain Carrot, and the Forever People of the Fifth World. With heat vision, the Supermen lay waste to Mandrakk and Ultraman, with the Green Lanterns delivering the final blow.

Back in the Monitor's plane, Nix Uotan is vindicated and acquitted, and he commands the Monitor to stop interfering with the characters on their worlds. He is reborn, again, as the young man back on Earth-0.

Index of Prominent Monitors

Earth-6: Marvel Universe. Monitor: Weeja Dell. (In Multiversity, this Earth's number changed to 8, while Earth-6 became Stan Lee's Just Imagine universe.)

Earth-31: Dark Knight Returns Universe. Monitor: Rox Ogama (or Zillo Valla; the syntax is ambiguous). (Before Multiversity, Grant Morrison removed the entire Dark Knight world from the Multiverse at Frank Miller's request.)

Earth-43: Blood League universe of vampire superheroes, based on the Batman-vs-Dracula story, Batman: Red Rain. Monitor: Zillo Valla (or Rox Ogama).

Earth-51: According to Countdown, originally like Earth-0 until Batman killed the Joker; the whole universe was ultimately destroyed. Remade as a Kamandi / Kirby world. Monitor: Nix Uotan.

Earlier, unspecified Earth, perhaps pre-Crisis Earth One: Monitor: Dax Novu.

Meaning

It's clear that Morrison did not create the Monitors as just another group of DC characters. As readers noticed, the story hints, and Morrison confirmed, they represent storytellers; their names, in fact, are all derived from the gods of writing in different mythologies. To understand the story, then, we have to understand which real people the Monitors represent, and how their interactions in the story convey a message.

Some readers have suggested a very tight interpretation of the Monitors, where each Monitor stands for one particular writer, and wherein the Monitor plot, then, tells the story of specific comic book writers. Moreover, some readers have suggested that Mandrakk stands for Alan Moore, and that Nix Uotan stands for Grant Morrison himself. Meanwhile, it would be logical to suggest that a few of the remaining Monitors who represent specific Earths of the Multiverse represent the writers who created those worlds; e.g., Rox Ogama is Frank Miller, and Doug Moench would be Zillo Valla, and Weeja Dell is some writer associated with Marvel Comics. I'll say in the early going that there are excellent reasons to make those associations. I will offer, however, that it is difficult to map the entire Monitor plot according to those precise identities. For one, there are far too few named Monitors with sufficient screen time to tell a very rich story about writers. And if Morrison wanted to tell a story about writers, would he really make Doug Moench one of the principal figures and leave no space for, say, Jerry Siegel, Gardner Fox, Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, Len Wein, Dennis O'Neil, Cary Bates, Elliot Maggin, Marv Wolfman, John Byrne, and Geoff Johns, to name just a few? I also find it extremely unlikely that Grant Morrison would assert that Frank Miller is a bad guy who is framing good writers for crimes they didn't commit. To play it on the safe side, I will suggest that each Monitor be seen as a school of thought, a movement among writers, editors, and/or fans, a style of approaching the stories, and in cases where a movement can be reduced to only one writer, so be it: There are certainly scenes where we can seem to pin a Monitor's identity down to one writer, but I will suggest that, even then, the message is intended to be broad.

So what is that message? Clearly, there are bad Monitors whom we root against: the two incarnations of Mandrakk corresponding to Dax Novu and Rox Ogama. There are good Monitors whom we root for: Nix Uotan and Weeja Dell. Zillo Valla is perhaps between the two or plays different roles at different times. Reader analysts and Morrison offer many tidbits about what is good and what is bad here, but we have to be careful not to overgeneralize and call the bad side all instances of dark, grim and gritty storytelling. Recall that Final Crisis itself has a lot of dark stuff in it, ranging from J'onn J'onzz catching a flaming spear through the chest to supervillains discussing the rape of female superheroes. And no matter how we interpret what is "bad" storytelling according to this parable, what bearing does that have on Morrison's promise that this is the truly final crisis?

There is a key that will make the Monitor plot instantly comprehensible, but before explaining what that is, I will need to include a couple of interludes that provide necessary background.

Interlude: Alan Moore's Superman Stories

In a short span of time, Alan Moore gave us two of the most highly regarded Superman stories of all time. "For The Man Who Has Everything," in 1985's Superman Annual #11 and "Whatever Happened To the Man of Tomorrow?" published in two issues in 1986 had a tremendous impact on the publication history of Superman. These stories, like many of Moore's works were good – very good. If you consult various best-of lists, you'll find both of those high on the list of best Superman stories ever. Moreover, the unpublished Moore concept Twilight of the Superheroes would have been another monumental Superman story, and a story, Kingdom Come, arguably inspired by Twilight of the Superheroes, is also on many such best-of lists.

FTMWHE and WHTTMOT have a surprising amount in common, and an obvious precedent that seems to have gone unmentioned. First, both result in the destruction, or deconstruction, of Superman, though neither shows his biological death. In each, Superman is shown alive, but not as Superman, and in both cases, he is an ordinary man with a wife and children. In the one case, Superman chooses to end his own superhero career, and in the other, he reveals his fondest wish to be an alternate reality in which he never began it. They both have further similarities: They show Superman hurting someone with his heat vision. They discuss, but do not depict, Superman's death. They both have main action set in the exact same place, Superman's Fortress of Solitude, as Superman faces off against enemies he cannot physically beat. WHTTMOT also shows Superman abandon his oath never to kill; not only does he deliberately kill Mxyzptlk (with the admittedly excellent excuse of needing to save the world), but he is willing to kill the Legion of Supervillains, as the mind-reading ability of Saturn Woman reveals. Moreover, in WHTTMOT, Superman not only decides that he needs to retire; in the identity of Jordan Elliot, he looks back on his time as Superman, and denounces the entire idea of his ever having been Superman: "He was over-rated and too wrapped up in himself." Fans should take this line like a sock to the jaw; why would a Superman book portray Superman calling himself over-rated?

As a sidebar, and a check regarding Moore's originality, both of them owe a debt of gratitude to 1980's then-recent Superman II, which also shows Superman facing an enemy he cannot physically beat, and also shows a principal showdown in the Fortress of Solitude, and also shows Superman renouncing his powers so that he can settle down as an ordinary man with Lois Lane. However, Moore's story reverses the chronology: In Superman II, Superman realizes that he is needed by his world. In Moore's stories, Superman decides, consciously or emotionally, that he is not. To a considerable extent, if you rearranged the order of Superman II so that he defeated Zod, then gave up his powers to be with Lois Lane, you'd have an Alan Moore story.

The destruction of Superman is not a plot trajectory that Moore happens upon by happenstance. Notice that FTMWHE also shows us Batman receiving his heart's desire, and Batman also wishes that he had never been Batman. And as seen in Watchmen, the Green Lantern story "Tygers", The Killing Joke and elsewhere, Moore shows superheroes self-destructing – morally, tactically, and fatally – because that is the end that Moore desired.

Twilight of the Superheroes is a story that was proposed by Moore in 1987 but never written. I discuss it here, but suffice it to say, it also destroys Superman and DC's other superheroes. Not only does Superman abandon his role as a superhero, to make himself one of many factions ruling Earth like a superpowered Game of Thrones, but he ultimately chooses to kill his rivals, in a battle to the death with J'onn J'onzz and then is himself killed, by Green Lantern Sodam Yat.

It was very soon after those monumental Moore-Superman stories that Time Magazine, in a 1988 cover story, had Superman say that while he's beaten every villain in his stories, turning fifty years old may be his greatest challenge yet. Note that it is the in-story Superman who has beaten his villains, and it is the Superman who exists as a fictional entity in our world who was turning fifty and facing the challenge of maintaining his legend while also retaining relevance. The Time article notes that Superman's current challenge was "a deplorable element that might be called adultification, in which a figure created for children is subjected to adult concerns." Moore took adultification to the extreme, in which Superman could no longer be Superman, morally or otherwise. For Moore, Superman had to forego his principles. For Moore, Superman had to stop being Superman and die. And in the immediate wake of Moore's stories, the world saw that Superman might eventually face an existential challenge. It was on the cover of Time magazine.

Lest there be any doubt, Final Crisis is in part a response to Moore's Superman stories, and to Moore in general. The three aforementioned stories are each quoted by Final Crisis, verbally or visually, whether through direct intent by Morrison or by the freshness of Moore's work in Morrison's memory as he crafted a response to it. Some of the shout-outs include:

• In FTMWHE, Mongul says that the Black Mercy gives its victims their "heart's desire." In FC, Libra uses that same phrase, and Luthor later repeats it twice.
• The title of Twilight of the Superheroes is remixed by Libra on the very same page: He promises "An end to the age of superheroes. A full-on, no bull&@%& twilight of the gods." And note very carefully: We do not see Libra's "heart's desire" emerge from a drawing of Libra but from the image on the screen of a cellphone brand-named DAMRUNG, which is a pun on "Samsung" but also an abbreviation of the German (via Richard Wagner) word "Götterdämmerung" which means "Twilight of the Gods." It is the author of Twilight of the Superheroes who tells us that the destruction of the superheroes is one's "heart's desire." Note that this makes two references to Moore's Superman stories in the same panel. I will also add that Libra was created by Len Wein, who brought Moore onboard at DC. And, though I saw several reviewers note the significance of the phrase, "twilight of the god," I haven't seen anyone link it to Moore's title.

• In WHTTMOT, Superman witnesses the violent death of one of his friends and is attacked by deadly force in the Daily Planet newsroom, an attack that leaves him physically unharmed but standing in the newsroom in his Superman costume after his Clark Kent clothes have been blasted off of him. This also happens in Final Crisis #2, and the art is quite parallel. (In WHTTMOT, Superman's Clark Kent identity is thereby destroyed forever. In FC, nobody is left conscious to see Clark revealed as Superman.)
• In FTMWHE, Jor-El is a broken, bitter old man who is disgraced by his failed prediction of Krypton's destruction. When Mandrakk confronts Superman, he opens with the taunt, "Your father failed to save his world."

Further references to Moore works include Morrison's take on Dr. Manhattan in Superman Beyond, a particular reference to Swamp Thing, the Superman derivative hero named Supreme, and a possible reference to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen that I'll mention later.

However, the similarities and shout-outs go still deeper yet. And this brings us to one more interlude that turns into an explanation of exactly how these works are related.

Interlude 2: Substory S

Imagine, if you will, the following plot elements occurring within a comic book story. The events jump around a bit in their relatedness, so it is more of a sub-sequence of a story than a subplot. I'll call this Substory S.

1) Brainiac 5 knows that Superman is going to fight a battle for his and the world's survival.
2) Brainiac 5 shows Superman a machine that can win the battle for Superman. Brainiac 5 does not give Superman the machine; he simply has him look at it.
3) Superman must face off against a being of pure evil at the command of godlike power.
4) A shield is placed around the scene of Superman and his enemy's upcoming battle. Other superheroes, even very powerful ones including Captain Marvel, cannot break the shield open.
5) Other characters present in immediate proximity to this battle include Batman, Wonder Woman, Luthor, and Supergirl; it is made clear that Supergirl has recently been vanquished.
6) We are reminded of Superman's oath not to kill.
7) Superman and Lois Lane have a conversation immediately before the ultimate showdown.
8) As Superman prepares to use the machine that Brainiac 5 mentioned, the evil godlike opponent announces that he will destroy Superman.
9) Superman responds to the threat with "That's right" / "You're right about that" but it is an ironic response; Superman does not believe that the villain is right, but that he himself will vanquish the villain definitively rather than vice versa.
10) Superman delivers the fatal blow to the villain, and the villain is destroyed.
11) Even though the godlike evil villain is destroyed, Superman now faces a threat to his continued existence.

That's a very specific list of events and situations. Do you know in which story those events occur? Trick question. Substory S – every one those details – occurs during the end of Final Crisis and Substory S – every one those details – also occurs during the end of Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" This is not a coincidence. At the final showdown, even the page layout matches, closely. Click to zoom in on how the climactic scenes align.


That illustrates how points 8, 9, and 10 line up on a single page, but alignments between the two stories go back to the first scene of FC #6, when Brainiac 5 shows Superman the Miracle Machine, mirroring the way in WHTTMOT, Brainiac 5 gave Superman a statuette with the Phantom Zone projector. The alignment between the two stories is so detailed that in neither one does Brainiac 5 give Superman the machine, and this is highlighted with the dialogue in FC when Brainiac 5 says, "Look at it, Superman! Just look!" In WHTTMOT, Lois Lane similarly tells Superman, regarding Brainiac 5's gift, "Take another look at it, Superman! Look at what it's holding!"

The stories align in far more ways than could possibly be coincidental, taking us from Brainiac 5 showing Superman a machine, "Look at it, Superman!", to a conversation with Lois Lane, Captain Marvel trying to help, Superman's "That's right," and then the final zap of the colorfully glowing god-villain. Morrison obviously wrote many details into FC with Moore's story in mind.

The end of Final Crisis, with the Darkseid plot concluding and the Monitor plot coming to a head, is a response to, sequel to, and a rewrite of Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" Morrison's handling of Substory S is key to understanding his intentions with the Monitor plot. By putting Superman in the same situation that Alan Moore put Superman in to end him, Grant Morrison shows us how the story should go – how Superman's story really goes.

Compare and Contrast

Given the great degree of similarity between Moore's and Morrison's versions of Substory S, we should pay attention to the differences between them, because therein is the heart of Morrison's message.

In Moore's story, Superman is isolated from his allies by a barrier. In Morrison's story, Superman bashes his way through the barrier with one punch at the end of FC #6. In Morrison's story, therefore, Superman has assistance from his allies, most notably Batman (who, inside the compound, had already shot Darkseid with Radion), the Flashes, Wonder Woman and even Luthor and Sivana.

In Moore's story, if Superman kills, he must renounce his superpowers and give up being Superman forever. FC has Darkseid articulate this, taunting Superman: "Kill me, Superman. Kill the frail old man [Turpin] upon whose soul Darkseid fed and fattened! How can you hurt a foe made of people? … Kill him. Kill me and you kill everything!" This is the predicament. Superman can physically kill Turpin's body, but then – because this is a remake of Moore's story – Superman would actually lose. But that's not how it goes, because Batman already fired a gunshot that specifically doomed Darkseid while leaving Turpin alive. And then the Flashes show up, bringing Death personified to take Darkseid out of Turpin. In Morrison's story, Superman is not alone, and the importance of alliance and loyalty is spelled out in Wally West's dialogue, "Think I'd leave you to do this on your own? Together, Barry! We're going in together and we're coming back together!" And so Batman, the Flashes, and then Wonder Woman all do their parts to reduce Darkseid to nothing more than a disembodied presence glowing like a neon sign that, as it happens, looks a bit like glowing Mxyzptlk in WHTTMOT.

In Moore's story, once Superman has beaten Mxyzptlk, he faces an even greater threat: Moore writing Superman into a self-defeating renunciation of himself and his powers. In Morrison's story, Mandrakk, representing Moore, shows up and demands that Superman give up and be devoured.

At this point, we can explain a few events in FC that happen so quickly that they seem incongruous with the narration. First, we see Supergirl slung over Ultraman's shoulder, though we never saw them fighting. Second, we see the Spectre and the Radiant (who excused themselves to go handle other business at the end of FC: Revelations) on the ground.  These jarringly abrupt appearances of Supergirl and the Spectre, both already defeated, translate directly onto the previous use of those characters by Moore. The almost bizarrely abrupt appearance of the vanquished Supergirl represents her bleak cameo in WHTTMOT, in which her then-recent death in Crisis on Infinite Earths was on Superman's mind when a much younger version of Supergirl visited him along with the Legion of Super-Heroes. It was to make these stories parallel that Morrison showed us Supergirl and not, say, Hourman or Alan Scott on Ultraman's shoulder, and why we didn't see Mandrakk and Ultraman defeat Supergirl in battle; Mandrakk was showing Superman his defeated cousin, but he didn't defeat her.

And, when Mandrakk arrives, he throws the Spectre and Radiant to the floor, and says that he "fed on these 'servants of God,' defenders of this universe. Drained now. Meaningless." That last word highlights that Mandrakk is not just some big, bad supervillain of the DCU; he's a writer who can make characters weak or meaningless. And why the Spectre? In ordinary terms, the Spectre is the most powerful character among DC heroes, almost impossible to defeat. But Alan Moore defeated the Spectre. He did this in Swamp Thing #50, when his Great Evil Beast drains the Spectre and leaves him lying limp on the ground. Compare the artwork. But for the addition of Final Crisis: Revelations' The Radiant, the art showing the Spectre prostate is similar in the two stories. As with Supergirl, the introduction of powerful characters already beaten comes across as jarring and unforgivably brief to a reader expecting conventional superhero storytelling. We see Supergirl and the Spectre already beaten because they were already beaten when Moore tried to kill off Superman.

But Final Crisis and the Monitor plot are not simply responses to one specific story. There are suggestive connections to other Moore stories. Captain Marvel, J'onn J'onzz, Green Lanterns, and Batman all have key roles in Twilight of the Superheroes. In that story, Superman thinks he can trust Captain Marvel, but near the end, he finds out that who he thought was Captain Marvel had actually been J'onn J'onzz the entire time; Superman and the Martian Manhunter fight until Superman kills the Martian, then a Green Lantern, Sodam Yat, kills Superman. Finally, it's revealed that Batman has been a key player in staging all of this bloodshed. In Final Crisis, Superman tells Mandrakk, "I counted on Captain Marvel of Earth-5 to come through." Earlier, Superman delivers the eulogy on Mars, beginning, "J'onn J'onzz was my friend. Always there, always strong, always reliable… He was someone I could confide in." Superman holds what seemed to have been Batman's body in body language recalling the Pietà. And finally, Green Lanterns are part of the cavalry who finally slay Mandrakk. Are these points all intended to address, very specifically, the beats in Moore's unpublished story? Maybe they're intended. On the other hand, if accidental, they highlight the striking difference between how Morrison writes the characters and how Moore does. In Morrison's version, the heroes trust one another, fight for one another, and believe in one another. In Moore's version, a physical barrier keeps them apart in one case, and their animosities lead them to a bloody massacre in the other. That sweeping difference is not accidental.

But the main characters in this final showdown are Superman and Mandrakk. Hearing Mandrakk's demand that he die, Superman says no. Then, using a power we've never known him to have before (shining light from his hands), Superman powers the Miracle Machine and wishes for "the best for everyone." Superman's allies, the Green Lanterns led by Hal Jordan and the Supermen of the Multiverse led by Captain Marvel of Earth-5 show up. Then, having heard Superman's wish, Nix Uotan arrives and – note the narration boxes – becomes the narrator of the rest of the story. Nix Uotan, the Monitor, represents the writer of this story, Grant Morrison, and declares, "This is between Monitors now," meaning that the fight is between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. Uotan says, "Mandrakk! At my right hand stands Superman himself." "Right hand" is a possible pun on "write hand" and an indication that Superman and the writer stand allied against the threat.

The writer is infinitely powerful, so he summons an unbeatable team of heroes, including the vengeful angels of God, the Green Lanterns, the Supermen, the Zoo Crew of Captain Carrot (speaking of lighthearted storytelling), and the Forever People. Mandrakk recognizes Uotan and says, "My son?" which is a probable pun on "Morrison" being "Moore's son." Declaring "There is no limit to what I can do" (because he is, after all, the writer), Nix Uotan has his unbeatable team burn Ultraman and Mandrakk with heat vision and the Green Lanterns spike the vampire Mandrakk through the heart. Uotan tells Mandrakk and the now-skeletal Ultraman that the Multiverse has natural defenses that he cannot imagine: Superman's and his allies' goodness will not allow Alan Moore or any other writer to kill them off. End of story.

In summary, the climax of FC #6 and #7 shows events that closely parallel Moore's previous stories, particularly "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" Regarded in 1986 as one of the greatest stories of all time, it did not, as Moore intended of that story, Watchmen, and Twilight of the Superheroes, spell the end of inspirational happy-ending superhero stories. The Monitor plot in Final Crisis was written, in large part, to rebut Moore's message and Moore's intentions, and the close parallels between Moore's and Morrison's scenes show us a large part of the meaning of Final Crisis in considerable detail, not as vague and open-ended as readers' analyses in the past saw it. However, the climax of the Monitor plot is only one part of the whole story, and with that in hand as a kind of Rosetta Stone, let's look at the whole Monitor plot to decipher all of Morrison's points.

The Monitor plot, Decoded

As the Alpha Lanterns seal off "New Earth" (which is Earth-0), looking down on it, the Monitors are on a still higher plane, looking down on them. Concerned about the loss of Earth-51 (off-screen, supposedly in Countdown, but we don't know what form of disaster Morrison actually had in mind), the Monitors repair the orrery of worlds (an orrery is, in its main sense, a moving model of the solar system). The loss of Earth-51 is really Rox Ogama's fault, but Ogama pretends to speak in Nix Uotan's defense. This scene is, first of all, a close parallel to Hal Jordan's trial by the Guardians. When Zillo Valla, via Rox Ogama, says that the Monitors have been contaminated by the life forms on the germ worlds, it may be that they got the idea of framing an innocent Monitor from the Alpha Monitors, whom they were just watching, and who were in the process of framing Jordan. However, Uotan lacks Jordan's grace, and actually gets punished, exiled to Earth-0.

Given what we learned about writers above, what does this mean? If we cram that storyline into the existing framework to fit the facts, we have Rox Ogama (Frank Miller and/or Doug Moench and others writing stories where our heroes become antiheroes and some heroes get ruined) bring us to a state where Nix Uotan (DC writers who celebrate the heroic nature of heroes) have trouble thriving, but Weeja Dell (Marvel writers like him) support him from afar. Clearly, Morrison chose the worlds of the Monitors with care, and in an interview, he found those choices "somehow appropriate." I think something like the above is Morrison's statement, but we don't get a lot of elaboration. In FC #2-4 all we see of the Monitor plot is a few panels that show Nix Uotan failing in his fast food job while he draws comics (Final Crisis itself; this is, for now, Grant Morrison) seeking a purpose. The good writer is out in the world, trying to learn from it, but not making clear progress.

We can also interpret Zillo Valla's comment that "Time has entered [their] timeless world. Beginnings and endings." Is it plausible that comic book writers once had no time in their lives, no secrets or lovers? No, I'm sure they had those in the Thirties. But what didn't have time, beginnings, or endings were the old-time stories. As I have discussed here, DC stories in the early days largely operated on cyclical time, with nothing much ever changing. It was a gradual process from about 1959 to 1969 in which the narrative shifted from cyclical to linear, culminating with marriages (first: Barry Allen), deaths (first: Ferro Lad) and growing up (first: Dick Grayson leaving for college). The stories suddenly had beginnings and endings. And with that, the world of DC stories became a place where heroes could die, introducing mature storytelling, perhaps, but also creating a place among writers for would-be Mandrakks.

Then, in FC #5, Nix Uotan is thrown in a cell with a few fellow outcasts, people who aren't susceptible to the Anti-Life Equation. Somehow, by seeing things differently, by believing in a better world (inspired by Weeja Dell = Marvel?), Uotan and his fellow outcasts (one of whom is Metron in disguise) are capable of extraordinary things, like beating the record at Rubik's Cube, and their imagination seems to have great power. This begins the Fifth World and makes Nix Uotan a super-capable writer, the Judge of All Evil, who sees comic book panels all around him in 360° vision. This seems to show that some writers, Morrison included, just get it in a way that the people caught up in the storytelling of Moore don't. Comic books aren't about trampled rights, torture, and degradation. The real world has plenty of that for its outcasts. Comic books are about the way out for the dreamers and believers in heroes.

Within the pages of FC, this paves the way for Substory S, in which Moore's temporary victory over heroism eventually fails. And when it's over, the leaders of the Monitors who sought to exile Uotan (writers preferring heroism) now take direction from them and decide to let the heroes be heroes, without writers trampling them as Moore and Miller both did to Superman, in order to make their own fame.

Now if this is the story of writers, it covers an era from Moore's heyday around 1987 to 2008, by which time Morrison and Johns had brought back Silver Age greatness, with the JLA and Batman each getting Morrison's treatment, and Green Lantern getting Johns', with the Barry Allen Flash returning in FC itself.

Back at the beginning, Libra explained that the superheroes win "because they truly believe their actions are in accordance with a higher moral order." Moore's and Miller's brand of storytelling took away the higher moral order, and this not only meant that the superheroes could lose (literally die, as Moore wished) but the whole superhero comics industry could lose. The Final Crisis is about the superheroes facing this threat, from writers (and editors and fans). But in Final Crisis itself, we only see a single instance of the threat, with the heroes prevailing between 1986 to 2008. What about the far future? That was the topic of Superman Beyond, which in Superman perception took place during FC, is actually set logically long past it, in an indefinite future yet to come.

In Brightest Day: Green Lantern(s) in Final Crisis

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the Darkseid plot implicitly breaks the heroes (superheroes, detectives, and government agents alike) into different groups, with the Big Five standing out as the only superheroes to strike effective blows against the big villain(s). There's an asymmetry, though, in that Green Lantern and his allies ultimately play no role in Darkseid's defeat, but show up to deliver the final blow to Mandrakk. This violation of the pattern, I think, reflects the particular publication history of Hal Jordan.

Hal Jordan, as noted earlier, has a history of getting into trouble with the Guardians. This cycle repeated over time and escalated, with Hal being punished at reduced powers on Earth (in the acclaimed 1970s run of Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams), sent into exile in space (in the early 1980s, making him absent from Crisis on Infinite Earths), and later a murderous villain in the guise of Parallax, ultimately killed off and removed from the DC lineup. Hal got the full Alan Moore treatment, deconstructed and eliminated.

But it didn't last. Hal returned to life and the DC lineup a few years before Final Crisis, and in the hands of Geoff Johns, rapidly became a top seller, with the Green Lantern title and its related events contending, at least temporarily, with Batman and Superman for the most popular DC character. And this, I would offer, is why Hal earned a special role in facing off against Mandrakk. Hal's story, as well as any character's, showed that Alan Moore's thesis that optimistic superheroes had run their course was wrong. Ultimately, Hal makes a better hero than he does a villain. And the character who had lost his solo title a few times and was completely killed off came back to show that his story as a hero is one that people want to read. When the Green Lanterns are almost back to Earth, they see Monitor ships representing the higher plane of writers. Hal tells Guy, "Whatever they are, they're our way in!" Ultimately, writers put Hal back into the story, and that was his victory.

Another possible tidbit: In Superman Beyond, there is a panel that summarizes, with one picture, the events of Crisis on Infinite Earths. The superheroes we see include Superman, Dawnstar, and Hal Jordan. Hal didn't actually appear in COIE, a fact made more striking when one considers the huge number of obscure characters who did appear. The panel in Superman Beyond may be a glitch; then again, it may be a pointed retcon. We could take that panel as an indication that the early, 1980s, phase of Hal's fall from grace didn't happen, and that from here on out, we can consider him to have taken part in that huge adventure after all.

Story about Story

As an overarching observation about the style of Final Crisis, note the rather intense nestedness of the storytelling. Dan Turpin is telling a story. Libra tells a story. Investigating the Orion crime scene, we have about a half a dozen characters trying to tell a story. And so on. In the climax of FC #7, Wonder Woman and Supergirl tell the story of FC itself to children waiting to be shrunk and saved. Speaking through the fourth wall, the incredibly miscellaneous quartet of Cassie Sandsmark, Red Devil, John Stewart, and a Morrison invention named Iman ("magnet") talk to us about Superman. In a world where superheroes inspire us, Superman inspires them. He's the superheroes' superhero.

And Lois Lane tells a story that appears in narration boxes on twelve different pages of FC #7. After that, Nix Uotan takes over. And do you know what story first had Lois Lane telling a story? Action Comics #1. That's the beginning. Nix Uotan, an avatar for Morrison, finished Final Crisis #7. This is the story of all our stories. And what it said along the way was that the best heroes come out on top. In fact, we see that Lois Lane's last story ends up following Batman into the past, so that he can bring the superhero symbols, his own included, into the future. This is yet another time loop, and a time loop is a story that has no ending. So the heroes live on forever and ever, in this case and many, many others. But a sideplot features a more universal story, one that goes beyond, and focuses on Superman. It's Superman Beyond.

Superman Beyond

As things are going almost literally to hell on Earth, Superman is called away by Zillo Valla who, if we interpret correctly, represents "dark" stories that mean well, like Batman: Red Rain, but that turn our heroes into monsters. See, there's a threat from Mandrakk that might destroy everything, Lois Lane included. And the threat in the real world is, nobody's going to like the comic books anymore if you kill all the good heroes, who brought them to the comic books in the first place.

And Superman Beyond leaves the comic book world of Earth-0. It's about something else, the higher level where the stories are stories. And there's not just one Superman; there are the Superman of one comic book company (Fawcett's Captain Marvel), and the Superman of another (Charlton's Captain Atom, here looking more like Dr. Manhattan in yet another Alan Moore nod), A Nazi Earth-10 (AKA, Earth X, the Roman numeral for 10) Superman who speaks German, and the evil anti-Superman Ultraman from Earth-3. These represent many instances of the Platonic idea of Superman.

The problem is, the echo of the harm that Alan Moore has done to the comics is threatening them all. This destroyer, Echo of Midnight, may destroy many pitifully vulnerable worlds like Earth-13 and Earth-20, later shown in Multiversity. The Supermen dump Mandrakk's echo on the destroyed Earth-51 and then go off-path to Limbo.

Limbo, as we can tell by the cast of characters, is where the characters who aren't being written about anymore end up. For Superman to end up here suggests that Superman is facing, eventually, the threat of being killed off by the ruin of heroic superhero comics.

Eventually, Captain Adam realizes that Limbo not being a place, the rules that would destroy Superman and Ultraman if they touched don't apply because nothing can happen. Merging them, we get for the first time the Platonic Superman, an invention of Dax Novu, and if Novu was the early Alan Moore, then I'm not sure how that fits into the comic history timeline; Moore's work on Supreme came later. Perhaps Dax Novu stands for all good, pre-Crisis writers, and then Dax Novu's creation of the Thought Robot Superman could be anyone's from Jerry Siegel onward.

Though Final Crisis #7 gets the last word, the battle between Superman and Mandrakk here is the real climax, because it's not Superman surviving one writer or another, it's the idea of Superman defeating the idea of killing him. If ever anyone wants to eliminate Superman, they're going to lose, because, as Zillo Valla (clearly not simply Doug Moench or Frank Miller) tells us, "the story of a child rocketed to Earth from a doomed planet" is "a better story, one created to be unstoppable, indestructible!" Being reminded of this, Mandrakk destroys Zillo Valla. In the real world, this means that in trying to destroy heroic superheroes, Moore and his ilk would destroy the darker, horror kind of comics that he likes, to his own chagrin, yet Superman, a better idea, and his target, will survive! This battle isn't taking place in 1986, 2008, or even 2017. It's taking place in an indefinite future. Always, Superman will be threatened by people who don't like the idea of him. Always, he will prevail and continue to be a story that inspires people. This is his ultimate, infinite, "beyond" victory, but it was published before, and sets the stage for, the victory over Moore and WHTTMOT's Substory S, that is the climax of Final Crisis.

At the end of Superman Beyond, Superman gets what he was looking for. It turns out that he can save Lois Lane just by being Superman, because that's what Superman does. He answers Mandrakk and Alan Moore that the story of Superman doesn't end (see below): It is to be continued.

He ends the story with a wink, which readers recall from the end of "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" In fact, the wink is an older Superman story motif, primarily from animated/live media including the George Reeves TV series, the 1966 Filmation animated series, and originating, apparently, with 1940s Fleischer animation.

The Infinite Book!

In Limbo, the Supermen encounter an infinite book, one with every story in it. This is a wonderful cosmic idea, although, alas, one that the theory of computer science shows to be impossible. This is the subject of one additional likely reference to Alan Moore. Moore's cosmology of League of Extraordinary Gentleman is a world in which every story ever told is true. The connection between these two is suggested most strongly when Mandrakk, near the end of Superman Beyond #2, says, in the first panel of his last appearance, "The whole of existence in a single book." This is a strange point for Mandrakk to emphasize as he speaks to the camera. Time and time again, when a Morrison story presents a character uttering a nonsequitur, or an unexpected cameo, this is a clue of significance that deserves careful attention. In this case, it seems odd that Mandrakk would find the book to be a powerful weapon, though we may ponder if it is; I suspect that the significance here is likely yet another Mandrakk-Moore connection.

At the end of Superman Beyond #1, Ultraman reveals that the infinite book has an ending, and in the end, evil wins! I have to say, I found that pretty chilling as a reader. This book seems to carry the weight of authority, like the book of Destiny in older comics, and if it ends with evil, wow, our story is headed somewhere bad, isn't it? Ultraman sure thinks so. Superman says it merely sounds like a challenge to him.

As I finished my first and second and tenth readings of Superman Beyond, I never found a resolution to my concern. Obviously, we don't see evil win, so it seems as though the matter is simply ignored. It isn't. It's addressed on the last page, impossible to miss, in huge letters. Superman's answer to Mandrakk, and Grant Morrison's answer on Superman's behalf to Alan Moore, is "To Be Continued." Superman stories don't end. In Superman's universe, it is always to be continued, and we never get to the end of the book. But if we did, sure, evil would win in the end. That's how that book must end. But Superman's book loops on forever. And this is why, in interviews, Morrison can say that when you understand Final Crisis, you'll see why it is the final one. This is about how the heroes and their end interrelate. And the way they interrelate is that the big ones, at least Superman if not the entire Big Five, are all "to be continued."

In fact, the first word we read from the infinite book is "Previously!" That's not how a story starts; it's how a story continues. Put that and Superman's epitaph together, and you get a serial format, beginning each issue with "Previously" and ending each with "To be continued." Superman's story goes on. They never end. And, as Morrison defines Mandrakk in an interview:

"Mandrakk is actually the ultimate evil where there's no hope. The grave. He's entropy, I suppose. No matter how hard you try, this entity will consume the universe and you'll be sucked into the gaping, bulging Black Hole of Mandrakk."

By maintaining hope, by never entering the grave, by never being consumed, Superman thereby beats Mandrakk, not just the Alan Moore of 1986 but whatever other Mandrakks arise in the future. He emerges triumphant from every crisis, and that is the story of the Final Crisis.

To Be Continued

Since 2009, DC's continuity has been reconfigured twice. Final Crisis is well in the rearview mirror and its yearlong tour as DC's most talked about event has long since past. It stuck in my mind the whole time. And it felt like I didn't get it, and I didn't read anything suggesting that anyone else really got it. I hope this analysis, years after the fact, revives the story in at least some readers' minds, and enters the scattered trail of blog posts and sub-reddits to transform it into a story that people get, and that people enjoy to its fullest.


I believe that people who have seen the alignment of "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and Final Crisis will not be able to think of this story the same way afterwards. I invite people to read Moore's story again, then read Final Crisis again, and see if it isn't a new experience. I hope that people who shrugged off Mandrakk's bizarre appearance the first time around will see it now as an essential part of the story, the main part of the story, and see how Superman and his allies defeat Mandrakk as a wonderful victory. And if a story that ended nine years ago can enter readers' minds again, that would really prove the main thesis of the Monitor plot, that superhero stories don't really end, and that they are always To Be Continued.

44 comments:

  1. Thanks for this piece. Final Crisis—like nearly all of Morrison's works—is hard to digest for a lot of readers, and, as a result, a lot of readers don't give his work the credit that it's due. I'm glad that you are able to extrapolate just how amazing Final Crisis really is on numerous layers. I've always found it to be a mind-blowing and monumental work of fiction, unparalleled in the superhero comics genre. BUT you do need to do a bit of perceptive work to see the full scope of the picture. I'm glad we have your astute mind to help guide us, Rikdad!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fantastic as always. I'm going to take awhile to digest this and maybe come back with more thoughts and questions, but one thing that stuck with me (now while reading your analysis and every time I've read FC before): what do you think the implication is of Weeja Dell not surviving and Nix being the only one left?

    If she is the stand in for Marvel, is that a statement that DC Comics (where the story takes place) doesn't need to be influenced by Marvel anymore? That Superman (and by extension DC) can live on in a way Marvel can't? That a comic universe is best served with a single "flavor" of writer running the show rather than having to intermingle grim and gritty w/hopeful comics?

    In a less meta sense, when Superman wished for the best for everyone, that (presumably immediately, although Monitor time is hard to parse) left Nix alone (well, he's with Mr Stubbs, which is something of a consolation prize). Should one interpret "best" in this case as Nix being the sole Super Judge is better for him and the multiverse than if there was another Monitor to influence/distract him?

    Maybe I'm just a romantic, but I've always been bummed that Nix wakes up alone on the last page of FC (well, the last page Morrison intended).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Collin, thanks. I can hardly say how much FC has improved for me upon multiple readings, but the lingering sense that things remained fuzzy had been with me since 2009; I feel like now at least all the major beats fall into place. I'd be deeply interested to see how it plays for other readers now, and if any big mysteries remain.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob, great comments, and I find myself immediately using Multiversity as a crutch, to discuss Nix Uotan in terms of his appearance in that, as opposed to trying to read everything possible into the last few pages of FC.

    Multiversity begins with the death of Earth-7 (Marvel Ultimates) and threats to, I think we can say, the entire DC franchise and Marvel alike. That said, I haven't re-read Multiversity in its entirety since this FC breakdown, although I skimmed parts of it, and it is, overall, less optimistic than FC.

    I'm not sure how to interpret the romances between FC's Monitors, but I thought an apt parallel would be an interpretation that Mandrakk's (Alan Moore's) allowed the rise of horror/superhero stories like Batman-Dracula, but is apt to destroy it if left unchecked.

    I'm not sure how the vanishing of Weeja Dell is supposed to sit, maybe because I'm not sufficiently up on Marvel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amazing review!
    I suggest you to read "Supergods" by Grant Morrison.
    I have a question: what about the Fifth World foretold by Morrison, here in FC and in RoBW#6 too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did get a chance to read "Supergods" last month, and I may post a write-up on that, too. That book provides a lot more material than I usually discuss in a post, but some commentary on a high level has been on my mind.

      Delete
  6. Unknown, Thank you!
    Huge omission on my part; I haven't read Supergods and really should. Add it to my list!
    The Fifth World was alluded to in Morrison's JLA run, for sure, by idea if not the same term. And I think he's really taking an idea that Kirby put forth as well, that Earth is special, and Earth will produce something great. But I don't think Morrison felt like he was in a position to run with the idea: He was nearing the end of his time with DC and in an interview said that the Fifth World is whatever comes next and that it's up to subsequent writers. So we've been in the Fifth World for a while, and it's been in the hands of Scott Snyder and Tom King and Bryan Hitch and all the writers since then. Maybe someone will do something with the name and idea, but it's basically been a reboot of the Fourth World that's not very different from the last version.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely! You have to read "Supergods"!! Morrison itself present its own poetics. You'll find a lot of similarities with your FC retro review.

      I'm writing from Italy. Once again, congratulations for your amazing blog. Your work inspired me to write some commentaries for italian readers. (http://www.dcleaguers.it/forum/batcaverna/batman-ciclo-di-grant-morrison/)

      I look forward for other exciting review. ;)

      Raffaele

      Delete
    2. Supergods is very great and gives an interesting peek into how Morrison thinks.

      As far as Final Crisis ges he doesn't really say a lot about that book specifically.

      He did say a few interesting things though.

      Here are a couple of quotes:

      "With J.G. Jones and later Doug Mahnke on art, we set about to dramtizing the breakdown of the rational enlightenment story of progress and development as it succumbed to a horror tale of failure, guilt, and submission to blind authority"

      "The "final crisis," as I saw it for a paper universe like DC's, would be the terminal war between is and isn't, between the story and the blank page. What would happen if the void of the page took issue with the quality of material imposed upon it and decided to fight back by spontaneously generating a living concept capable of devouring the narrative itself."

      "I tried to show the DC universe breaking down into signature gestures, last-gasp strategies that were tried and tested but that would ultimately fail, until finally even the characterizations would fade and the plot become rambling, meaningless, disconnected. Although I lost my nerve a bit I must confess and it never became disconnected enough. This I was trying to say is what happens when you let bad stories eat good ones."

      At no point does he talk about how or if it connected to other creators works, but based on what he did say I'd argue that you are most likely onto something as the whole using "signature gestures, last-gasp stategies" etc. idea works a lot better when actually mirroring past stories, stories that try to close or end the book, rather than setting it up for new ideas and the expansion of imagination.

      Delete
  7. This plus Multiversity plus the recent Wild Hunt one-shot have got me wondering questions like WHO is the Monitor of Earth-33?

    Aquaman was actually the first character to break out of cyclical storytelling, right? He got married to Mera, and had a kid, before other superheroes did any of that stuff. But he's conspicuously missing from Final Crisis.

    Also, I believe Sodam Yat was himself likely in Hal Jordan's retinue at the time, since Final Crisis occurs before any of the dramatic "off the table" happenings to Sodam before Blackest Night. So in the end at Midnight facing Mandrakk, Sodam Yat is there, alongside Hal Jordan, one presumes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Keith – Great question! Aquaman married Mera in Dec 1964. Barry married Iris about two years later, so yes, you're right. That's a significant first, and a great addendum to my knowledge.

    In fact, Final Crisis implied that Aquaman was somehow once again alive and Hawkman was dead, but then the comics afterwards immediately reversed that - another glitch between FC and other comics.

    Good point about Sodam Yat. We could try to scrutinize the artwork to see if he's in there. It was only a year earlier that Johns asserted that Yat was in modern continuity, so I'm not sure if Morrison had digested that fact when he scripted FC, although there was certainly time to add him to issue #7.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Rik. I've gotta re-read this and write notes but won't have time until tomorrow to get real in-depth. I suppose I could also re-read just the Monitor pages of F.C. and see what I think now, post-Multiversity, and even post-Wild Hunt.

      Off the cuff, though, those armies gathered by Nix are certainly representative of Light, Music, other themes that kill vampires, let alone story-vampires.

      I wonder if it's even possible, too, to factor in the new revelation of Earth-53. I mean it at least involves Mister Stubbs, who I believe to be the secret Monitor of that Earth, and in particular if Stubbs was the monkey-man in the cage in the Evil Factory with Nix.

      Delete
    2. Keith, another great point on characterizing the armies that assembled against Mandrakk.

      I missed the news on Earth-53 as I haven't read Wild Hunt yet. The scene in the Evil Factory with Nix was definitely a strange one that I didn't much try to unpack, but thematically it had to do with people who don't "fit in" and I think I deleted a comment to the effect that Nix's earthly life reminded me of Peter Parker.

      Delete
    3. Nix also certainly becomes a direct representation of those who read this kind of stuff as escapism - and so Mandrakk correlates, if we're talking about cynicism invading your escapism. It's tangentially related to The Gentry as well - though they seem more to represent external despair/depression/anxiety from external Earth-33 pop culture influxes, rather than specifically referencing "cynical storytelling" as a dark Monitor would.

      I'm definitely going to recommend Wild Hunt, even if you're not on the weird Metal roller-coaster.

      Delete
  9. Thanks Rik. Once again a fascinating and timely read, particularly given last weeks Wild Hunt and the return of Promethea in JLA. So I guess now that I'm wrapping up on my latest re-read of Promethea I'll be turning to that great brick of Absolute FC for its re-re-re-re-re-reading...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dubtropic, as I noted in my last comment, I haven't read Wild Hunt, and I've got some catching up to do. Doomsday Clock looms a month off, so I'll try to get read up by then. The only titles I've been up on are Superman, Batman, and JL, and Dark Metal had my rapt attention but has started to lose it.

      Delete
  10. This really is a fantastic series of posts - definitive imo. Amazing work!

    Don't really have anything to add other than a couple of extremely minor nitpicks - I-Man isn't a Morrison original, he's from one of the 'Planet DC' Superman Annuals from 2000. And Hal Jordan didnt appear in COIE because he wasnt Green Lantern at the time, John Stewart was. That story came straight off the back of Hal returning from his exile in space though, so you weren't far wrong! The 'new' version of FC from the Absolute has the character in the COIE flashback coloured as John Stewart, so it looks like it was probably a production error.

    Once again, really great stuff here, very glad to have read it :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. DST, thank you. There was more to say, but somewhere around 3 billion words, I cut it to a close.

    That's great to know about Imán and Jon Stewart. I'll add that to my list of coloring errors that seemed like plot points. (Eye colors kept changing in Identity Crisis, which I thought was a clue. And the Joker was mysteriously blood-stained at the end of Batman #676.)

    Thanks for the updates; I'm a little sad about Hal missing COIE again, but understood. At least Jon Stewart got a lot of short parts in FC.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very interesting reading of the Monitor plot, and I'll be sure to keep it in mind next time I re-read Final Crisis (and "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow", for that matter), but one thing that struck me about Mandrakk is that Morrison used him as the story's actual main villain during a time when vampires were ubiquitous thanks to Twilight, True Blood, Vampire Diaries and whatnot. Even Marvel tried to cash in on that craze by trying to make Dracula's army the next big thing and having them fight the X-Men (come to think of it, it was pretty much the same thing they did with the Inhumans years later, with just as little success).

    I got the feeling that Morrison was trying to show people that the super-hero was a much stronger and more life-affirming concept than the vampire, with Superman and Madrakk representing those opposing ideas. However, I think that was just one of the many themes Morrison was weaving together, and to me what Mandrakk ultimately symbolizes is writers who suck the life out of super-hero universes by causing permanent damage to them just to make their stories "matter".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rik, this is incredible work.

    In this reading, COIE and Marvel might represent two incomplete attempts to thwart the Ultimate Deconstruction enabled by narrative linearity. The COIE (or DC Comics) approach, is to hit a cosmic reset button when things get too complicated. Ironically, this approach is usually used an excuse for things to get darker than ever - it's all getting wiped away at the end, anyway. Marvel's "illusion of change" approach (up until very recently) allowed a complicated history to accumulate while keeping the core of flagship heroes the same - Gwen Stacy dies, but Spider-Man eventually returns to wisecracking heroics. The shortcomings to both are readily apparent. A Crisis doesn't actually erase earlier stories from the minds of readers and writers, so the same complications recur, and the reset button has to be hit again, sooner each time. Only so much change can be illusory, and eventually the weight of accumulated history has to destroy or fundamentally change a character.

    After Moore/Crises/Marvel, Morrison's Fourth Way is something like a return to cyclical time, but with literal time loops that mean Everything Counts, and exploit the endless possibilities of genre and medium to their full. Hypertime 2.0? I'm sure I'll think of something. Batman and Robin will never die. To Be Continued.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shagamu, what a great point. I have said that when Morrison does something jarring, seemingly non sequitur, to pay attention, and that is another great example. I remember reading the line "Vampire gods!" in SB #1 and thinking, "Really? Are they?" It doesn't seem to work the vampire angle in the usual ways. We don't see them biting anyone or hiding in coffins (besides Mandrakk's vault), any of the usual razzmatazz, and I think your point helps address that. Reinforcing that, Multiversity's "Gentry" also have obviously vampiric designs, and he was clearly speaking to various mass media stereotypes there. Excellent observation!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rikdad -- Thank you for this exhaustive post bringing clarity to the Monitor plot of "Final Crisis." That you spotted these parallels with "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" is simply remarkable.

    As a young adult watching DC "grow up" in the second half of the 1980s, I read much of Alan Moore's work and respected it, but never much liked it. There is no question that in the 1990s, Grant Morrison began putting out there a more affirmative view of superheroes' roles in the DC Universe and in our imaginations. Indeed, I would say his four-part JLA debut in 1996-97 featuring the battle against the Hyperclan was truly a breath of fresh air for comics readers such as myself who were sick and tired of the previous decade's deconstruction of the superhero ideal.

    Since, I've come to identify what I call the "Morrison moment," often featured in the last panel of the penultimate chapter of a story, where he or the hero indicate evil is about to go down ("Club of Heroes" story is an example at the end of Batman #668, with Batman's comment in response to The Black Glove's announcement that evil was winning. Batman and Robin #2 last panel of Dick Grayson racing to save Damian Wayne is another. So is "Batman and Robin #15" when Bruce Wayne finally reappears, much to Dr. Hurt's surprise. And, most recently, the last page of "Dark Nights Rising: The Wild Hunt" in which... Well, you haven't read it yet, so I won't spoil it.)

    It is in those moments that Morrison indicates he realizes that ultimately the crowd in a theater or the comic book reader with story in hand needs that moment to anticipate and cheer, that deep at heart, most of us want to see good triumph over evil in our fiction and by extension in the real world.

    I never knew to think of that green stake going through Mandrakk's heart as a commentary on Moore's dark view of superheroes. Next time I read that moment in "Final Crisis," I might finally relish it.

    Thanks for all your hard work and insight, as always.

    ReplyDelete
  16. James, Thanks so much. I have read comparatively little Marvel over the years, but Morrison certainly has(!) and that extends the discussion very nicely. In Multiversity, one of the first things that happens is the destruction of Earth-7, the Ultimate Marvel universe. I like your discussion of different forms of time. It finally jumped out to me that Zillo Valla was talking about circular->linear time in her first words with Weeja Dell.

    Morrison's original plan for FC was to call it Hypercrisis, which ties in with your mention of Hypertime. Also, Mandrakk's exultant comment, "The whole of existence in a single book!"

    ReplyDelete
  17. MWTE, thank you greatly. The trail of breadcrumbs that led me there was noticing that Lois Lane was talking with Superman before the big finish in both. Then I noticed the page layout similarity, then Captain Marvel in both, but when I saw that Brainiac 5 and a machine that he shows to Superman were in both, I knew there was no chance of a coincidence.

    I didn't see all this until after I'd already written the first parts of my FC review. And I'm sure I wouldn't have gone so far down the trail in the first place if others hadn't suspected that Mandrakk is Moore.

    I like your notion of that Morrison moment. There has also been very similar language from the villain in New World Order, Batman RIP, Superman Beyond, and elsewhere, to rub it in the heroes' face that they are letting down the people who they are trying to save.

    Thanks as always!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just because your last comment mentioned
    Bread Crumbs , I have been wondering for awhile (but didn't want to bring it up here) Do you know what Q Anon is ?
    There are SO MANY parallels on many levels
    "Detective FUTURE PROVES PAST ..."
    I have to imagine it would at least intrigue your obviously Incredible Mind
    Rikdad (beyond politics and such )

    ReplyDelete
  19. Keith, I have now read Wild Hunt. It was definitely a good issue, as much of Metal has been. A thorough re-read might make Metal pay off more than it has so far for me, but I'm giving those extra minutes to Watchmen and Doomsday Clock for now. Maybe another read through Metal will happen soon, though.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bones Justice,

    That's a mystery I hadn't heard of. I definitely love a mystery, and there are plenty of them outside of comics, but that one I didn't know. At a glance, I didn't see anything super unusual to it, so I'll stick with the mysteries I've been pondering. :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rikdad, will you be going further into the part of the Monitor subplot that deal with the whole meta-part of the blank page vs. the creations put upon it (not as a reflection of certain creators but as a point of its own) as well as going into more depth in regards to the Monitors' origin?

    Also, in my many re-readings of Superman Beyond and Multiversity: Guidebook I've yet to fully figure out if Dax Novu is supposed to be the original Monitor/Monitor-Probe (the one from Crisis).

    The way it reads to me in Superman Beyond the Monitor-Mind or Overvoid (in SB only referred to as Monitor in the time when there was Monitor only) creates a probe which is sends into the Universe. Based on the image we see of the Monitor during Crisis on Infinite Earths it would go to suggest that the Monitor-probe is the original Monitor from Crisis. However, one the very next page we learn that "blinded, split in two, the probe withdraws" which would suggest the division into Monitor and Anti-Monitor, meaning the Monitor-probe is more likely the "father" of Monitor and Anti-Monitor.

    The Multiversity Guidebook doesn't really clear things up. In fact it confuses things a bit more. Here it is stated that:

    "Of OVER-VOID is MONITOR born and ANTI-MONITOR which is the opposite, the Conflict generator, the Story Machine." and then "For study, Monitor-Mind brings forth Science Monitor Dax Novu. Who selflessly enters the flaw and is contaminated and split in two"

    Now, is this the same thing being told in two panels just after one another or was the Monitor and Anti-Monitor born before the probe was sent in (which seems to make little sense) and if they were then why does Novu split into two if we already have both Monitor and Anti-Monitor.

    This might not be something you're interested in trying to figure out, but just wanted to see if you had some thoughts on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like I lost a long reply somewhere in web limbo!

      No, I don't see a longer tale to tell in the Overvoid / Blank Page portion of the allegory. Clearly, blank pages don't create sentient consciousness and the comic book writers didn't grow out of that. I think that's just backstory to make the Monitors function as characters in the DCU and, just like their salmon-colored skin and funky haircuts, doesn't map onto anything else. I may be missing something, though.

      Delete
  22. Hi, Rikdad.In your thoughts regarding Monitors representing writers, Zillo Valla seemed to have that odd Kryptonian-like headdress. I remember several people bringing it up when FC was being published.

    Could Zillo represent John Byrne, who changed the wardrobe and landscape of Krypton? (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) That would eliminate Frank Miller from those writers. Zillo sucking Overman's blood would be Byrne's reconstruction of Superman in MAN OF STEEL. Hate to put it like this, but pumping new blood into the post-COIE Superman, since the blood of Overman was used as fuel for the Ultima Thule?

    In the Multiversity Guidebook, Earth-38 was Byrne's GENERATIONS, but I've also heard that the number refers to 1938, the first appearance of Superman. Huh. That makes the first hard reboot of Superman written by Byrne, so...stop me. I'm in a cyclical loop.

    Someone brought up who the Monitor of Earth-33 is and since Multiversity I've been saying that it could only be Bob Haney.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wayne,
    Good point – the similarity is obvious once it's pointed out, but I hadn't thought of it anytime recently (maybe in 2008?).

    However, the final pages of FC #7 give the Earths of Zillo Valla and Rox Ogama as 43 and 31 (respectively, one imagines, although that's not clearly stated). Those corresponded to Red Rain and Millerverse, and when an interviewer asked Morrison why, he said that they seemed "somehow appropriate." Before Multiversity, the Millerverse was pulled out of the 52 at Miller's request.

    I'm sure that's right about Earth-38.

    Earth-33 is the old Earth Prime that Ultraa was from, and it was created originally by Cary Bates in Flash #179. He was later the villain of his own story in a JLA arc. Then we had Ultraa, Superboy Prime, and in the post-IC era, "Ultra Comics."

    Bob Haney deserves an Earth – I sure enjoyed his World's Finest – but I'm not sure if it's in the Guidebook anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rikdad--I was thinking more that Morrison switched out Miller for Byrne (and, again, it wasn't even until I read your post here) because Ogama became the new Mandrakk. And since the Kryptonian outfit seemed to be a big deal back then, I thought that *might* have been what Morrison was going for, but the Multiversity map changed over time. As with Weeja Dell's Earth changing.

    Flash fact! Supergirl on the CW is from Earth-38, too.

    Also, I was sort of kidding about Haney, because he just wrote what he wanted, putting Wildcat on Earth-1, creating the Super Sons, having a hooded assassin force Jim Aparo to sketch Sgt. Rock killing Batman on the cover of a Brave & Bold. So why not still be writing beyond the grave, making all sorts of crazy stories?

    And think of the similarities of the letters in certain Monitor names. Rox Ogama. Nix Uotan. Bob Haney. Maybe he is Monitor over one of the seven unknown Earths. He does deserve one.

    PS It will take me awhile, since I only discovered your blog with FC, but I have it bookmarked and I'll try and catch up soon.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It occurs to me to post presently (bigger thoughts are still long-gestating) that I never realized that Ogama "becomes" a second Mandrakk.

    I recall him clutching the orrery all vampiric-like but I just thought he had been "turned" by Mandrakk or something similar to Ultraman, not that he was the Mandrakk at the end of all things.

    Was there a line of dialogue I missed that made this explicit? Was it something that came in the additional pages in the revised edition, or was it there from the beginning?

    It's a bit of a baffle to my overall historic interpretations of F.C. because I was always operating under the assumption that Nix Uotan was the son of Dax Novu, the original COIE Monitor. After all, what symbolism is there in Nix, Monitor of failed-Earth/Kirby-Earth in being the scion of the Monitor of Miller-Earth?

    And another thing just to add, is the insertion of "Vampire Ultraman" into the Red Rain Earth narrative.

    Morrison's Ultraman is certainly the Anti-Matter Ultraman of JLA: Earth 2, and not quite the same as the Ultraman of Earth-3, the Evil Universe. But the total blur and confusion between the Anti-Matter Universe and that of Earth-3 has always been ... well, more confusing than where various Bizarros hail from. Especially when you bring Sinestro and the Anti-Monitor into the mix.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keith, great questions/points:
      Perhaps the art is ambiguous (particularly when weird sci-fi things are taking place), but at the end of SB #2, when Mandrakk is gone, we see Ogama (who identifies himself by name) standing over Ultraman and saying, "Drink deep of the bitter cup of Mandrakk, as I have…") and we see his hands change from normal to long and spiny and mid-speech, he turns into Mandrakk. I don't think there's another likely way to interpret the art (e.g., does Ogama suddenly leave and Mandrakk arrive from somewhere else and finish his speech?).

      But, though we and Superman see SB-Mandrakk first, and SB-Mandrakk-Ogama refer to the next fight with Superman (FC7) coming second, I think the logical order in terms of comic book allegory is for the FB7 confrontation between Superman and Mandrakk to happen first (in 1986 or 2009) and the SB2 confrontation between Superman and Mandrakk to happen in an indefinite future or platonic "time". The FC7 fight is saying, "Superman beat Mandrakk this time" and the SB fight is saying "Superman will always beat Mandrakk."

      So, I think there's a suggestion that good new writers (Nix Uotan) followed old good writers (Alan Moore) as did problematic new writers (Frank Miller).

      Delete
  26. This is difficult to say, since you did such an incredible, thorough, authoritative job making your essay, and its arguments.

    But to my mind, WHTTMOT was not a deconstruction, but rather a love letter. It was Moore's job to send off the Silver Age/Earth 1 version of Superman, and he did that. Whatever his overall views of superheroes and their fates (and he is becoming a hopeless curmudgeon faster than a speeding bullet) this story was one of an ultimate struggle with horrendous casualties. Even having the brutal moments it had, it was not out of step with some past imaginary stories, one of which had a Kal-El raised on Krypton still lose his parents and a nearly AU-unique baby brother to a random accident.

    I don't mind taking Miller to task; his works were in essence taken down by his later stuff. But in Moore's case, I'd say it was much more like other writers taking their cue from his cynicism without also using his evident wonder at these characters.

    Make no mistake, I miss SA/BA/E1 Superman; we've seen almost every version of Supes' return at some point, but he only made that cameo in Batman/Superman, and there he was specifically the Whatever Happened version. I'm also no fan of grimdark, like the contemporaneous final issue of DC Comics Presents, # 97, which made 'Whatever' seem like a life-festival. It still burns me that Kal-L (E2/GA) had his final appearance to date be as a Black Lantern, Deadite-taunting Martha Kent.

    I dunno. I know Moore basically is Mister Deconstructionist, but I just never felt and still don't feel that WHTMOT was part of that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gojirob,

      Thanks for all the comments; I agree with most!

      For my purposes here, it doesn't matter if you or I believe that WHTTMOT is anti-Superman or not; it only matters that Morrison does. However, while I agree that many pages play like a love letter, a few moments stand out. Foremost among these is Jordan Elliot saying that Superman was "overrated." I can't think of a way to spin that as anything but a profound criticism. I would quite agree that his adjacent comment that the Bronze Age Superman was too wrapped up in himself, and I think Byrne did a lot that was quite good to address that. And that Earth 1 Superman did return, surprisingly briefly, in Convergence.

      I agree that I did not like Johns' send-off to Kal-L. I never really liked much of how Kal-L was characterized in any case. He and Jay Garrick are often characterized as simply speaking in a corn-pone old-fashioned, conscious-of-changing-times way which is the most superficial treatment: The actual 1938 Superman was a brash, in your face ruffian, and I'd prefer to see any rendition of him (as distinct from later Superman versions) emphasizing that.

      My favorite handling of him was in Joe Kelly's IC crossover "Superman, This Is Your Life." The seriousness with which he addressed topics as grim as the Holocaust and Doomsday range true with me.

      Delete
  27. I would also like to add that the infinite book with every story ever told might also be a reference to "The Book of Sand" by Jorge Luis Borges. Borges is very popular among the comic book writers of the British Invasion. Moore quotes him in "Watchmen", and Gaiman and Morrison include little homages to him in "Sandman" and "Batman".

    ReplyDelete
  28. Unknown, that's a nice catch: I'll have to look more into it. I wrote quite a detailed post about Morrison's use of Borges. http://rikdad.blogspot.com/2013/08/ouroboros.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think, maybe ironically thanks to Metal, I have the Monitor origin story figured out now, without any issues.

    Metal makes the choice to call the original Crisis Monitor "Over-Monitor". If the dialogue in TMG reads; "Of OVER-VOID is MONITOR born and ANTI-MONITOR which is the opposite, the Conflict generator, the Story Machine." and then "For study, Monitor-Mind brings forth Science Monitor Dax Novu. Who selflessly enters the flaw and is contaminated and split in two" then the second mention of splitting in two - the mention referencing Novu, simply probably refers to the cellular division or asexual reproduction or whatever fission occurred that generated the 52 Monitors. "Infected by story" is probably the same inciting incident that was Mister Mind's cosmos-bending during Fifty-Two, and Dax Novu's "incursion" into the universes probably took place in/around/result of that Crisis (Infinite).

    So the O.G. Monitor, and the Anti-Monitor ... are progenitors or predecessors to Dax and all the Monitor-Kind. I don't know if that makes them Monitor-Gods, or more like Monitor ... Management. Or Prototypical Monitors. Not that it matters much, since Nix Uotan is the last of Monitor-Kind anyway. But I am keen on seeing the Superjudge interact with the original Monitor if possible, especially since it's all back in the mix - the House of Heroes, Harbinger, Anti-Monitor has been running around and we've learned he has a story himself. Actually it even clarifies for me differences between the Anti-Matter Universe and Earth-3.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keith, thanks for this look at the previous and current uses of the characters and trying to synthesize them. I read your comment when you posted it but needed to think before replying.

      One link that you didn't mention is that the Superman Beyond synopsis of the Monitor history uses the phrase "divine metals"!

      I think it's safe to say that the Monitors have been used both ways – as characters in the DC Multiverse/Hypertime and as stand-ins for the authors of DC stories – in Wolfman's original conception as well as in Morrison's mind.

      I would be tempted to posit that Snyder in Metal did not feel beholden to the verse and scripture from FC+SB in articulating Monitor history, although the "divine metals" line is an eye-opener: Perhaps he did try to make his account compatible with Morrison's and other DC history in the small details.

      But it certainly gets tangled. I agree that Mr. Mind's rampage had the same effect that the diversification of comics history did, although it came, of course, way after the diversification itself did.

      In my reviews of Multiversity, I note a distinction between the different Earths: Some are different creative universes corresponding to a body of work from another publisher (with all of the legal constraints that go with that, and which differ from creative constraints). And then there are the Earths created just to make a certain story interesting and were DC inventions from the start.

      Note also, the cellular division and doubling, as opposed to incremental growth, that has happened a few times. We went from one Earth to two when the JSA was brought into Silver Age continuity. The Earth 3 introduction implied a potentially vast number of worlds. COIE made the Antimatter Universe an opposite to ALL the positive-matter Universes. And now Metal has made the Dark Multiverse another radical expansion (doubling and then some) of realities.

      Delete
  30. Bush Robots ! ( this was bugging me so long and always , so simple to find if I didn't oroboros )
    A bush robot is a hypothetical machine whose body branches in a fractal way into trillions of nanoscale fingers, to achieve very high dexterity and reconfigurability. The concept was described by Hans Moravec in a final report[1] for NASA in 1999, who projected that development of the necessary technology will take half a century.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Why do DC and Marvel keep parroting eachother ? There are literally CELESTIALS as the Main Event BIG BADS of both, in their Summers EVENTS .
    Hickman Secret Wars (YAY!) & Convergence (BOO) , I'm starting to think it's on purpose and Both are in on the WORK . (Wrestling references but easily applicable ) Are we going to see a Marvel vs DC again Soon ? (2019) I don't like it , but I see it coming . In this day and age of conglomeration ... (Don't quote me on this

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The summer movies definitely had some parallel "world-ending device" plots, but neither of them were original in that regard. The first precedent that came to my mind was the 1962 JLA story with Abnegazar, Rath and Ghast (reprised later in a JLA-JSA-LSH mega-team-up). The equivalent Marvel story came later. There may be some much earlier precedent.

      So I doubt if the movies copied one another, but the comics may have.

      In any event, the final moments of Infinity War put the thought in my head of Superman showing up and punching Thanos as happened at the end of Justice League. Alas, no such luck for the MCU. (But look at the difference in box office.)

      Delete