Grant Morrison: I still don't get it

[Mr. Earle]

DRZ you're wrong, sosososo wrong. Leo is Lex. even the reason why he took the name Leo all point to redemption.

I agree. If you read that picture i posted in the previous page, it explains things perfectly.

Also, when in jail, Lex had a monkey dressed like Superman to mock him. The monkey's name was Leopold. What a better way to mock your older evil self than call yourself Leo(pold)?
Then, at the end Superman gives Leo the means to combine human and Kryptonian DNA, in other words the key to his successors. Leo says "you trust me with this? I could be the devil for all you know!" and Superman says that he's a better judge of character than that. Superman knows its Lex. He can see his DNA code, hair plugs and glasses wont fool him.

And finally, returning to the past and affecting it is a major theme in Morrison's work. From Bruce being responsible for the bat tribe and possibly Barbatos (not clear on that last one yet) through his time travel, to the time traveling story in Batman #700 where that scientist fixes his life by faking his death, to the Unknown Superman in All-Star (future Clark wanting to see his dad one last time), to the time traveling story of DC 1.000.000 where the future Solaris makes the heroes construct him in the present, to the way he uses Damian's future as Batman to give us hints about the present.

If you want Leo to be just another scientist, its cool. But you can also accept that Leo = Lex and that AS-S is all about redemption, hope and the power of ideas. Morrison just didnt want to ruin the theme by revealing it.

There was some blogs and such that people have posted that examine it, and I think there's enough weight to it to think it's a possibility. I'm don't think it's meant to be 100% for sure personally, but I think it's there's at least a little more than just synergy from the text itself.

Morrison left it open for interpretation by the reader. Have you guys seen Inception? The story can easily be explained in a multitude of ways.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Is there anything in the book to indicate that Quintum is Lex, other than they both do science?

Read my previous post and this:

Spoiler

 

[Mr. Earle]

Also, check out the hair of Leo's assistant (left) and the helmet of Lex's assistant (right).

 

[Mystirious]

Has Morrison ever been asked about this at a convention

 

[Mr. Earle]

I dont think so, but i doubt he'd give it away. He'd be spoiling the magic of the book.

But seriously though, its a Grant Morrison book about what he considers to be the ultimate Superman story. Did anyone think that it would simply be about Superman saving the day before dying?

 

[Mr. Earle]

Hm, i just read that pic i posted and its not so much about Lex being Leo, but more about the story in general. Here, read these:

http://neilshyminsky.blogspot.com/2008/09/leo-quintum-is-lex-luthor.html
http://mountainofjudgment.blogspot.com/2008/09/all-star-superman-xs-and-os.html

 

[Venom 1988]

Wow I totally never got that Lex/Leo connection.

*leaves to reread All-Star Superman*

 

[The BatDude]

Ah yeah i'm totally wrong when Grant Morrison told that Leo Quintum is a man of good:
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100823-Morrison-Superman3.html
Clearly fan theory > Grant Morrison's own words. Whats next you're gonna tell me? That Gail Simone can handle critism?

I think this interview was done around the time All Star barely came out. Of course Grant isn't going to ruining the end by spilling the beans on Leo being Lex

 

[Assassin]

I think this interview was done around the time All Star barely came out. Of course Grant isn't going to ruining the end by spilling the beans on Leo being Lex

already checked that, it came out the same week of #12 so i can see why he wouldn't want to spoil it

 

[Saint]

Hm, i just read that pic i posted and its not so much about Lex being Leo, but more about the story in general. Here, read these:

http://neilshyminsky.blogspot.com/2008/09/leo-quintum-is-lex-luthor.html
http://mountainofjudgment.blogspot.com/2008/09/all-star-superman-xs-and-os.html

That's pretty interesting, actually. Morrison's comments about the character don't seem to support it, but a neat idea either way.

 

[BrianWilly]

I've never bought the Lex/Leo thing. It just feels like really circular logic; "Barry is Libra" all over again. If you read the thing with the notion that "Leo is Lex in the future" already in your head then, yeah sure, you're gonna see all sorts of suggestions and clues or whatever that seem to "confirm" it, and of course the story never flat-out says "Lex isn't Leo." But if you don't presuppose the Lex=Leo conclusion before the fact, then all those supposed subtexts and suggestions and clues are just...nothing. Just ordinary scenes that don't hint one way or another. One line of Leo referring to himself as the devil and a bunch of rhetoric about science and the past or whatever is supposed to make me think they're "ironically" the same character? That's a pretty damned bold leap.

Hey, I'm a fan of geometric proofs. I don't go for that circular reasoning. vv

 

[Mr. Earle]

I'm guessing you havent read any books or watched any movies where the resolution is left to the audience. Its ok, because its not a common thing in comics. Usually the hero saves the day and kisses the girl. I doubt Morrison's ultimate Superman story would be just that and it wouldnt have a deeper theme.

Also, if i remember correctly he gave Millar the ending for Red Son (i think it was supposed to be in the Superman retcon they were going to do together and which never happened), an ending he wanted to use in one of his stories, so its only natural that he'd want to outdo it.

I admit that i didnt figure it out by myself, but when i was told about it, it really made sense. They both wear the same suits, they both hold their hands behind their backs, Morrison really underlined the helmet that Lex's assisant wore which looks a lot like the hair of Leo's assistant, the quote about Leo making amends for his past, questioning Superman's decision to trust him, "if you wanted to cure cancer you could have done it years ago if it mattered to you" (Superman was challenging him, not writing him off), and Leopond the monkey.

And like i said, time travel affecting the past, the present or the future is a common subject in Morrison's work. You dont need forced exposition to hit you over the head with the book's message:

- Gee pops. Why did Lex fade into obscurity?
- Because he is the villain that we didnt deserve and the scientist that we need, he will help us reach the stars. All of them. He is an all-star super man!

 

[BrianWilly]

It's not "left to the audience," it's not bloody Inception or something...it's just flat-out never brought up by the story in any way. Not a one of those "suggestions" those sites mention have any relevance whatsoever if you don't presuppose that Leo is Lex. It's completely circular logic to the tee. What it is: "Hey wouldn't it be cool if Leo was Lex? If that were the case, then these lines would be totally clever and synergize and stuff." What it isn't: "Whoa, these lines are cleverly suggesting that Leo is Lex in any way whatsoever, all on their own within the framework of the story without anyone thinking up that idea beforehand."

 

[Mr. Earle]

It's not "left to the audience," it's not bloody Inception or something...it's just flat-out never brought up by the story in any way. Not a one of those "suggestions" those sites mention have any relevance whatsoever if you don't presuppose that Leo is Lex. It's completely circular logic to the tee. What it is: "Hey wouldn't it be cool if Leo was Lex? If that were the case, then these lines would be totally clever and synergize and stuff." What it isn't: "Whoa, these lines are cleverly suggesting that Leo is Lex in any way whatsoever, all on their own within the framework of the story without anyone thinking up that idea beforehand."

I edited another paragraph at the end of my previous post about blatantly exposing the theme of the book. Morrison isnt Nolan.

it's just flat-out never brought up by the story in any way. Not a one of those "suggestions" those sites mention have any relevance whatsoever if you don't presuppose that Leo is Lex.

Some people will see a simple elseworlds tale about what would happen if Superman got cancer, others will see that Leo = Lex. At the end of the day, there is too much coincidence there to be mere luck, but even so, i choose to view the book this way. It makes it a lot better, a lot more meaningful, and a lot more appropriate for the "ultimate Morrison Superman tale".

 

[Tron Bonne]

It's not brought up in the sense that no one goes, 'Hey, you think Leo is Lex, Jimmy, I could see that', but just look at all the stuff that's been posted. I mean, okay, let's say some of it's stretching, but I find it hard to believe that we have all these parallels and you can't at least see how someone can read it like that as more than just simply synergy. I mean this isn't like, 'Well, she's naked, so it must or must not be rape', there is a lot of stuff here, and come on, it's Morrison, he loves time travel and crazy **** like this

And then you have Morrison even say he has some of the Devil as a Trickster in the character. Going back in time as someone else is definitely a big trick. And, of course, also in relation to that quote, what does Luthor do when he goes to the chair near the end of All Star, he rejects God, quite a bit like the devil (just thought of that).

I won't say that it's a 100% thing, but yeah, I think there's at least some kind of ambiguity there to make that kind of connection as more than just random synergy. And it just works so damn well with the book, it would almost be a shame if that possibility wasn't there really

 

[BrianWilly]

Of course people will read whatever the poop they want out of a story. Doesn't mean that all interpretations are equal, or that they are equally based in valid narrative evidence.

And bear in mind, one of my favorite stories ever was the "Here Comes Tomorrow" New X-Men arc that Morrison wrote; literally every single readthrough of the story is going to be a new experience because he just crammed it full of interesting hints and suggestions. I'm not averse to dense, meta, subtext-filled stories that say interesting things without spelling them out explicitly word-for-word. But the opposite is true as well: Just because a theory isn't explicitly contradicted doesn't mean there's any genuine evidence for it. I'm just not a fan of circular logic, I don't know how else to say it.

And I'm sorry, I don't see the assistant thing at all. One is wearing a weird helmet, the other has wacky hair that doesn't look anything like the helmet beyond "is somehow pointy." One is green, the other is red. Where is the great connection, here? Who in the world is going to start looking for similarities between them if they weren't trying to figure out a connection between Lex and Leo? This is an utterly classic case of, yeah, you're obviously gonna see a bunch of similarities if you're already going by the starting position that they might be connected through Leox. But just going by their individual appearances alone, virtually no one is going to confuse the two or even think that there are many similarities.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Of course people will read whatever the poop they want out of a story. Doesn't mean that all interpretations are equal, or that they are equally based in valid narrative evidence.

And bear in mind, one of my favorite stories ever was the "Here Comes Tomorrow" New X-Men arc that Morrison wrote; literally every single readthrough of the story is going to be a new experience because he just crammed it full of interesting hints and suggestions. I'm not averse to dense, meta, subtext-filled stories that say interesting things without spelling them out explicitly word-for-word. But the opposite is true as well: Just because a theory isn't explicitly contradicted doesn't mean there's any genuine evidence for it. I'm just not a fan of circular logic, I don't know how else to say it.

Eh, whatever. I think it's pretty obvious there's quite a few ways to approach this from the text itself to see this connection from the stuff that's been posted. There's no flashing lights that say 'Ah, yeah, guys, Ah yeah, guys, Ah yeah,', but then it wouldn't be ambiguous obviously. You think it's all just a bunch of BS, whatever, free to think and all that.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Of course people will read whatever the poop they want out of a story. Doesn't mean that all interpretations are equal, or that they are equally based in valid narrative evidence.

And bear in mind, one of my favorite stories ever was the "Here Comes Tomorrow" New X-Men arc that Morrison wrote; literally every single readthrough of the story is going to be a new experience because he just crammed it full of interesting hints and suggestions. I'm not averse to dense, meta, subtext-filled stories that say interesting things without spelling them out explicitly word-for-word. But the opposite is true as well: Just because a theory isn't explicitly contradicted doesn't mean there's any genuine evidence for it. I'm just not a fan of circular logic, I don't know how else to say it.

And I'm sorry, I don't see the assistant thing at all. One is wearing a weird helmet, the other has wacky hair that doesn't look anything like the helmet beyond "is somehow pointy." One is green, the other is red. Where is the great connection, here? Who in the world is going to start looking for similarities between them if they weren't trying to figure out a connection between Lex and Leo? This is an utterly classic case of, yeah, you're obviously gonna see a bunch of similarities if you're already going by the starting position that they might be connected through Leox. But just going by their individual appearances alone, virtually no one is going to confuse the two or even think that there are many similarities.

Morrison wrote a whole scene about Lex giving the helmet to his assistant , which otherwise did nothing. But the helmet and the hairdo
look a lot alike. Its like they have a little missile on their heads.

 

[Drz]

I think this interview was done around the time All Star barely came out. Of course Grant isn't going to ruining the end by spilling the beans on Leo being Lex

He was more then willing to spoil that Dr. Hurt is the devil tho.

Also Dwayne Mcduffie commented when asked "is the all-star superman movie going to support the fan theory of Leo = Lex?" he commented that the movie has been recorded and that he doesn't agree with the fan theory.

So yeah, suck on that.

 

[Mr. Earle]

About Morrison's handling of Batman:

Spoiler

 

[BrianWilly]

Eh, whatever. I think it's pretty obvious there's quite a few ways to approach this from the text itself to see this connection from the stuff that's been posted. There's no flashing lights that say 'Ah, yeah, guys, Ah yeah, guys, Ah yeah,', but then it wouldn't be ambiguous obviously. You think it's all just a bunch of BS, whatever, free to think and all that.

Yeas I think I'll go ahead and continue not buying this theory that basically lacks any real evidence and can't be supported without resorting to itself in a circular rationale.

And on the slight side-bar subject of Morrison being nuanced and deep...I love Morrison, but it doesn't always work, and it isn't always effective. One of my least favorite Morrison "meta" instances of writing ever -- in fact I will go as far as to say that I hated it -- is when he said that the Super Young Team's diminishing presence in Final Crisis was his personal narrative "comment" on how they're going to fare as DC characters, slowly fading out since no one will use them. I'm sorry, but this is a ****ing ridiculous way to write and I will tell you why. It is ridiculous because freaking no one would ever have known this was the intent if Morrison hadn't told an interviewer about it. His intent and the execution were completely divorced. His intent was completely absent in the context of the story! Every single person who read Final Crisis, even people who are on board with his "story breakdown" in the later issues, would simply see his depiction of the SYT as horrible writing -- introducing a bunch of new, seemingly important characters only to have them inexplicably end with a whimper -- and for all intents and purposes it is horrible writing because saying that it's a clever commentary in a ****ing online interview doesn't make it a clever commentary in the story, ARGH. You only write as well as you are able to communicate. Telling people that you did a clever thing does not make the thing clever and Morrison needs to avoid this like the ****ing Ass Plague in the future. I think I preferred it when I simply thought of the SYT's outcome as bad writing, and that my regard for that subplot actually lessened when I found out that Morrison thought he was being clever with that "fade out of the story" BS, because no. Sit down, Grant.

Just to not end on a downer note though, I will say that I loved every single moment of Superman: Beyond. See, when his meta is applicable and...ascertainable in the context of his work, it's magnificent. When it's just him throwing **** around and it feels like he doesn't even care about the quality of the result so long as the process of getting there is CLEVER DAMNIT, it's cringe-worthy. And it's easy to see which ones are which, with him.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Maybe he made a comment about those heroes. I doubt he expected people to catch that while all that **** was taking place and his writing was getting choppier by each page.

And yeah, Superman Beyond was fantastic, but again, someone might not see the metatext and think of it as just another Superman story. But there is a metatext. Just not explicitely explained.

 

[Saint]

Yeas I think I'll go ahead and continue not buying this theory that basically lacks any real evidence and can't be supported without resorting to itself in a circular rationale.

And on the slight side-bar subject of Morrison being nuanced and deep...I love Morrison, but it doesn't always work, and it isn't always effective. One of my least favorite Morrison "meta" instances of writing ever -- in fact I will go as far as to say that I hated it -- is when he said that the Super Young Team's diminishing presence in Final Crisis was his personal narrative "comment" on how they're going to fare as DC characters, slowly fading out since no one will use them. I'm sorry, but this is a ****ing ridiculous way to write and I will tell you why. It is ridiculous because freaking no one would ever have known this was the intent if Morrison hadn't told an interviewer about it. His intent and the execution were completely divorced. His intent was completely absent in the context of the story! Every single person who read Final Crisis, even people who are on board with his "story breakdown" in the later issues, would simply see his depiction of the SYT as horrible writing -- introducing a bunch of new, seemingly important characters only to have them inexplicably end with a whimper -- and for all intents and purposes it is horrible writing because saying that it's a clever commentary in a ****ing online interview doesn't make it a clever commentary in the story, ARGH. You only write as well as you are able to communicate. Telling people that you did a clever thing does not make the thing clever and Morrison needs to avoid this like the ****ing Ass Plague in the future. I think I preferred it when I simply thought of the SYT's outcome as bad writing, and that my regard for that subplot actually lessened when I found out that Morrison thought he was being clever with that "fade out of the story" BS, because no. Sit down, Grant.

Just to not end on a downer note though, I will say that I loved every single moment of Superman: Beyond. See, when his meta is applicable and...ascertainable in the context of his work, it's magnificent. When it's just him throwing **** around and it feels like he doesn't even care about the quality of the result so long as the process of getting there is CLEVER DAMNIT, it's cringe-worthy. And it's easy to see which ones are which, with him.

I largely agree. Morrison can sometimes employ his mad science to the detriment of the narrative--and I say that being a big fan of the man. The reality is just that sometimes his experiments work (New X-men) and other times they don't (Final Crisis)--and while I like the idea of a layered story that one has to read multiple times to digest, I do not like a story where it's necessary for the author to explain every issue on Newsarama.

I'm willing to endure most of his ventures though, because if he does succeed, it's extremely satisfying when the pieces fall into place (Batman: RIP).

 

[The BatDude]

Superman wears a pair of glasses to become Clark so what does Lex do? He dons glasses and a wig.

 

[Drz]

Superman wears a pair of glasses to become Clark so what does Lex do? He dons glasses and a wig.

Or Leo simply uses glasses and has hair, how about that? With Morrison telling newsarama that Leo is Leo, among with Dwayne Mcduffie not approving the fan theory while he did the script for the movie version when will you guys simply accept that not all fan theories are correct regarding Morrison's work?

Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Batman is Orion lol.