Deadfool And The Cabinet Of Infinite Memory

Editor's note: this post was written in 2009

It always seemed to me that the most powerful fictional characters would not be determined by their strength, wealth, or intelligence – but rather, by their ability to realize they were fictional.

For what good is everything else if you are not aware of your own fictionality, of the true nature of your very existence?



In this sense, a character like Deadpool's exemplary physical durability is really just a metaphor for his enlightenment as to the fact that he is a fictional character. Fictional characters can be chopped up, burnt, exploded, decapitated, what have you – but they cannot truly die, as long as there is at least one person existing who can keep creating stories (official or otherwise) about them.


Deadpool represents the first card of the Tarot deck – techincally the first card, but not the card labelled "1." No, the first card, The Fool, is a "0." The Fool is off the grid. The grid being interpreted as Maya, as the delusional/fictional reality. Or: the grid as comic book grid, as a sequence of panels on the page.

Thus, Deadpool plays the part of Fool, but he just might be, due to his self-awareness, the most powerful character in the Marvel Universe.


Similarly, the entity known as Superboy/Superboy Prime/Superman Prime is by far one of the most powerful beings in the DC Universe (though Animal Man, by virtue of his close collaboration with Grant Morrison, comes in a close second, I think).

Of course, The Super Prime Entity is insane, which shows the inherent danger in this entire game. He took things too seriously. He devolved into insanity. Whereas Deadpool protects himself by insanity & foolishness being his initial starting point. The Super Prime Entity needs to know it all, hence his obsessive trolling of message boards, what have you (which would really drive anyone insane)...

...on the other hand, Wade Wilson, like any of the Fool/Trickster archetype – Heyoka, Coyote, Loki, Eshu, Bugs Bunny – seemingly knows nothing, and only is interested in jokes and tricks. Deadpool is an idiot – and yet he has achieved contact with the world outside the boundaries of the grid. Deadpool has achieved enlightenment but wears the cloak of insanity/foolishness in order to process it. Whereas the Super Prime Entity is a know-it-all douchebag with no sense of humor.

As an interesting side-note, the traditional colors of the Yoruban Fool/Trickster god Eshu are red and black, as is of course Deadpool's costume:

Now, you might have experienced a certain "tingle" at those moments in fiction when the character turns around and acknowledges you. There is the famous scene in Animal Man, of course, where Buddy Baker turns to the world outside the panel and freaks out, locking eyes with yours. Or how about when Ferris Bueller (another Fool/Trickster archetype) addresses you throughout the course of his movie? In these instances, something truly special is taking place – you and the fictional character are "having a moment." There is a real interface that takes place, if only for those few seconds of contact. Yes, just like in the A-Ha video.


It is not coincidence that the two comic book writers who have most explicitly discussed these matters in their work, Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, have both practiced magick. They are shamans using the tool of the comic book quite literally and purposefully as part of a mystic working stretching/expanding our conceptions of fiction & reality. They are not merely gently touching the invisible barrier between reader and read – they are like the Super Prime Entity smashing that last wall, "punching time."


The sequence of panels in my old blog banner used to bother me. If we read the three panels in the standard Western way, from left to right, it seems that "I" (Occasional Superheroine) start as as pencil drawing, get color and ink dropped in, and then become a photograph of a real person. Whereas the way it really happened, of course, is that it started with a photograph given to an artist, penciled, and then ink/color dropped in. Though ACTUALLY, it started with me (real me) taking the photograph, then photograph itself, then pencils, then color/ink, then scan/digitization.


But then again, even that woman in the photograph no longer quite exists. Her hair is different. She's older. Her thoughts have developed. A good number of her cells have died and been replaced. The photographs, her writings, her memories, and the memories of others are the only real touchstones that this particular version even existed at all. We can't go back and find this 2007 me, physically point to her, and use her as some sort of hard evidence for the fact that she actually existed. All we have are memories and various media.

It is said that to our subconscious, fantasy & reality look pretty much the same. That a dream vividly experienced registers in the subconscious the same as a "real" event. How does our brains, then, process the fictional? In the grand matrix of our minds, where are the adventures of Deadpool, the Super Primes, etc. stored, and how are they regarded? They are filed away with our memories of real life events. Memories and media, anecdotes and images, recollections and typed words transfered into thought – it's all in the same file cabinet.


All we have is This Moment. And if "this moment" happens to be you curling up with your favorite movie or comic book – in that pinpoint of a moment, it is all real. In that pinpoint of a moment, Ferris Bueller is really locking eyes with you and addressing you, playing the part of Heyokah, playing the part of the Fool, playing the part of Bugs Bunny, trying to make you understand not just the nature of his world but your own. And trying to do it with a degree of good humor, frosting it with sillyness and humor, so as for your tender minds not to be completely blown.

Of course, I'm probably full of shit.

Read More

Grant Morrison: Can He Serve Two Masters?

"Grant Morrison, I Am Disappoint"

Alex Zalben at MTV Geek has made the case far better than I could about what was so depressingly disconcerting about this recent Grant Morrison interview in Playboy:

The concern here is that he’s slipping more and more into predictable behavior, relying on looks at the past, rather than moving comics into the future. Sure, it’s a tough battle, given you’re on the losing side: fans and companies complain they don’t want change, so why should you go out on a limb to provide it? But really, the first superheroes weren’t created based on expectations, they were created as a way of inspiring the world outside comics to be better than itself. And the world did change... So can’t superhero comics change with it?

We used to look to Grant Morrison, for better or worse, to provide that change, and to be the guy who was mostly misunderstood in his own lifetime. It’s a thankless job, but for years, he took the position and embraced it. Ironically? We don’t want him to go changing on us now.

The op-ed goes on further to speculate if Morrison isn't just burnt-out after working on so many mainstream projects and facing the wrath of fans. The sort of "if this is what you want Fanboys, well let me be the first to stick the funnel down your throat and force that yummy-yum-yum gravy down." Behind every cynic beats the muffled, cholesterol-daubed heart of a former idealist, etc. The similarity of Morrison's commentary on the "essence" of these characters and that of Frederic Wertham is in particular quite stunning; I guess it all depends on the messenger, huh?

 What A Drag It Is Getting Old

This seems to happen quite a bit to many of my idols as they age. For example, I was a big Dennis Miller fan back in the day, and he has become quite conservative since then. Frank Miller, too. It makes me wonder if it isn't just an unavoidable consequence of aging -- not only aging, but aging and still trying to not go completely insane and bankrupt as the result of being in the middle of this stuff for 20, 30, 40 years. Certainly people like Hunter S. Thompson seemed to retain more of their anarchist, anti-establishment edge as they got older, but at least he had an extensive gun collection to blow off steam (among other things).

But what of Grant Morrison, spending such a long time working for the comics mainstream? Certainly, I assume he received more free rein to do what he wanted with his characters than say Joe Fill-In -- but working on mainstream comics with key branded characters will inevitably involve compromise, even for someone of his stature. How long can you balance your genius with the necessities of such work? Can you successfully do so? What is the trade-off?

The Universal And Eternal Dilemma: Simon Magus Vs. John The Baptist
This is an universal and eternal dilemma (reference Matthew 6:24) that entails sacrifice any way you look at it. Morrison gets to be Mr. Cool in Playboy, impeccably groomed and the essence of chic; in contrast, Alan Moore looks shaggy, baggy-eyed and somewhat fanatic in various interviews, the Wronged Man. Simon Magus versus John the Baptist in his animal skins. Is it better to metaphorically sacrifice these characters we've loved so much on the altar in a flourish of dismissive cynicism, or martyr ourselves for these creations rather than see them besmirched or commercialized?

Is the key that Morrison never created Batman, Wonder Woman, and the like? Is it the co-opting of one's own creations that eventually drives the creator insane? Whereas Morrison is writing about entities that have seen life as cake-toppers and inflatable bop-bags as well as comic books? So at the end of the day, Morrison can just say, "Well, he was a f**king cake-topper anyway. Lego. Bop-bag. Camp icon." At the end of the day, he can just claim a higher level of Cool, by presenting the very act of making mainstream comics as a conscious, ironic act, like painting soup-cans. Hence referring to characters like Batman and Wonder Woman as nothing more than what Wertham saw in them over 60 years ago, as nothing more than the Pow! Sock! camp icons from the 1960s.

Batman and Wonder Woman: More Than Just Lasso n' Leather Freaks?
Why not discuss the role of tragedy and childhood trauma in the psychological make-up of Bruce Wayne, as a topic at the heart of Batman that goes beyond the same tired Freudian/Werthamian/Mr. Roperian speculation as to whether or not he wanted to have sex with his underage ward? Why not acknowledge the role Wonder Woman played as a feminist icon in the 1970s, discussing how she evolved as a symbol? To acknowledge something deeper to these characters -- something deeper that might have a strong impact for positive change and self-reflection on the countless readers who have read their tales -- to acknowledge that, and to then have to deal with the mainstream System, comics as Product, that's all too much. That's too painful. Then he would have to also acknowledge The Universal And Eternal Dilemma.

But the other side of the coin is that if you're going to buck the system, say "F U" to the mainstream, and advocate tons of change -- especially in such a tiny industry as comic-making -- you will not only face a tremendous amount of nerd rage but limited job opportunities as well. If you are relatively lucky like Mr. Alan Moore, you have already built a substantial following based on your previous mainstream work, possess a prolific amount of creator-owned work to publish, and have enough various naturally-derived substances to kill the pain. Some of us would only be left with the substances, unfortunately, and the problem as to how to pay for them on a regular basis.

Better Living Through Magick?
I think Grant Morrison doesn't need the Mainstream. If I had to guess, he has already started to plant stakes in that Utopian Creator-Owned fallow field of untapped potential I've heard so much about. He has also spoken in the past of the rather anarchical practice of planting magickal sigils deep within his work as a way to counteract -- or transform --The System:

For every McDonald's you blow up, "they" will build two. Instead of slapping a wad of Semtex between the Happy Meals and the plastic tray, work your way up through the ranks, take over the board of  Directors and turn the company into an international laughing stock. You will learn agreat deal about magic on the way. Then move on to take our Disney, Nintendo, anyone you fancy.

But does this really work, or is it merely wishful thinking? Is it too easy to get seduced on the way to your Grand Trickster Play? Can you really "game" The System -- via magick or otherwise? If corporate logos and brands are as powerful as Morrison claims they are...is it not possible that they can work the other way, bewitching and bedazzling you without you even realizing it? Is the proper method to embrace the Brand, the System, in order to shape it -- or, like Moore, banish it completely from your line of sight and retreat into the wilderness?

And the final question is, does any of this even matter at all? Why waste our time defending the honor of imaginary creatures? Unless you believe, maybe, that these Bop Bags and Bondage Queens are really Gods.

Happy May Day.

Read More