A Tale of Two Brothers

[mrosa]

When we last saw him, Robert Oppenheimer had been murdered and devoured by his cannibal twin brother, Joseph. Then Robert woke up:





He walks to the city, then finds a horse and rides him the rest of the journey. Along the way he discovers he can use his imagination to manipulate the landscape. When he arrives at the city he makes an unexpected discovery the reader had guessed already:




I think we all saw this one coming, right? Well, Robert was killed in the '40s, he didn't have a lot of time to get genre-savvy and all plot-twisty.

Well, it seems Robert is gonna go all Agent Smith on his brother's simulacra (hey, it's a comic book by uber-genius Jonathan Hickman, I'm obliged to use jargon from Jean Baudrillard), turning him them into his followers in an upcoming Oppenheimer Civil War. This sounds like the most interesting thing in the series so far.

Also, for all the hype this alleged new golden age of comics gets, am I the only one who's tired that most captions are fucking redundant? He 'ran from the truth' and then we see him literally running away. What the fuck? He 'climbed skyward,' and I'd like to know how that's not the same as saying he 'climbed up,' which he says by the way a panel later. And Hickman was nominated for an Eisner for this writing? And then people have the gall to say comics in the past used too many captions and thought balloons were redundant! Have people actually looked at comics nowadays? They're the fucking same! Pick up any comic book from Image and all you see is redundancy; I've lost count of how often the things narrated in Fatale, for instance, are basically the same we see in Sean Philips' art. And then people make fun of thought balloons, say comics were badly written in the past, say they're so much better written nowadays? Honestly, who are these people?

Comments

[sadoeuphemist]

I don't think they're redundant. "He ran from the truth" is metaphorical, the art is literal. It's an obvious pun, not a redundancy. And the point of contrasting "skyward" and "a direction that seemed like up" is obviously to suggest that skyward and up may not be the same thing.

[mrosa]

And the point of contrasting "skyward" and "a direction that seemed like up" is obviously to suggest that skyward and up may not be the same thing.

Except that in this case they are because in both panels he's going up, meaning he's saying the same thing twice. Just think this, if the 'direction that seemed like up' had been removed, would the sequence have been less clearer? I don't think so, so I consider it redundant.

[sadoeuphemist]

No, you're still glossing over the key word: "seemed like up." It's not a redundancy, in fact it's actually casting doubt on what is being portrayed in the art. Perhaps he's not actually going up after all, and it only seems that way.

[mrosa]

For God's sake, we're not looking at a complicated optical illusion! The figure is going up!

[sadoeuphemist]

How do you know that, and that the drawing isn't just presented to you upside-down? How do you know that the world Oppenheimer is in even has a meaningful definition of "up"?

[glprime]

I'm more critical of Hickman's use of real historical figures with quite frankly insulting new personalities just so he can have the description of "featuring historical characters!" in the summary. If you're gonna bother to use history in your alternate history fiction, at least use the interesting truths.

[sadoeuphemist]

I've said this before, but I don't see why fiction writers are obligated to stick to historical fact any more than any other sort of fact. I don't care if science fiction is scientifically accurate either, if the story makes it clear that it's not intending any sort of accuracy at all.

[captainbellman]

Wellll, in cases like these, where the figures' descendants are still alive years after, they might object a little to the inaccurate portrayal. See also: Lionel Logue's son pointing out that contrary to "The King's Speech", Logue never actually called King George VI 'Bertie'.

[sadoeuphemist]

Well I don't really care even if we're talking about contemporary figures. The King's Speech is deliberately fictionalized for dramatic effect, the makers acknowledge that, so criticizing it for being non-factual is missing the point.

Like, I can get being upset when you think that fiction is deliberately spreading misinformation, but it's not as if anyone is going to read MP and actually believe that Oppenheimer got eaten by his cannibal twin brother.

[arilou_skiff]

It's less about cannibal twin brothes and more about well, personalities.

[sadoeuphemist]

I don't see what the difference is. Who can read MP and reasonably conclude, 'yes, this is an accurate depiction of the historical figure of Oppenheimer'?

Besides, there's no point in trying to depict a "personality" objectively, as some sort of historical fact. Your personality depends on how you come across to other people. Someone can be an asshole and a saint to two different people. That's got no objective basis.

[captainbellman]

I was going to argue the point further, but I'm a big hypocrite - I've got my own romantic notions about history (for instance, I'd still like to believe Shakespeare wrote most if not all of his plays). So I'll concede you the point, especially as all we seem to be doing is stating reasons why we like or dislike it.

[sadoeuphemist]

Wait, is it romantic now to believe Shakespeare wrote his plays?

[captainbellman]

Well, yes, when you consider that everyone in those days was borrowing from everyone else and modifications were made by various parties. Certainly he wrote the brunt of them, I'm just saying that realistically he wasn't the only person involved in the process.

After all, all but two of the plots were from classical literature or other sources.

[sadoeuphemist]

Oh, okay, I thought you were suggesting some anti-Stratfordian conspiracy.

[captainbellman]

Heaven forbid. I'd cut off my fingers first.

[icon_uk]

Funny you should mention that

[icon_uk]

To me, it depends on how the extent, and how defamatory the changes are. cf First Officer William Murdoch in Cameron's "Titanic".

An alternate history is fine, an alternate history where noted historic characters are basically ALL acting deranged/like complete bastards solely in order to make the story work? Not so much.

[sadoeuphemist]

I personally think that after the facts have been altered past a certain extent, the end result is harmless in terms of misinformation. If it's obviously false no one's going to believe it, the most damaging sort of lie is one that's believable as the truth.

[icon_uk]

Fair point, by the time you're into outright caricature it's easier to dismiss.

Which is perhaps why the William Murdoch one irks me, he's not well known enough generally for his real history to be known without looking it up (And I only know about it because of the minor outrage it caused in Scotland), so it could easily be assumed that what was shown on screen was historical truth.

[mrstatham]

But then once the facts have been altered beyond a certain extent, why even invoke these people at all? If they're not meant to be much of a resemblance to the actual figure beyond a face and a name, why bother?

[sadoeuphemist]

Because people can have a public image, an existence as a symbol, that transcends and even may contradict their existence as actual flesh-and-blood humans. Genghis Khan, for example, can be used as a figure to represent the ravening barbarian hordes, even though in real life the Mongol empire was religiously tolerant, ethically and culturally diverse, etc.

[mrosa]

But if the facts don't matter, if the true story was so dull or uninteresting to the vast public, then why did they ever decide to tell it in the first place? That's what I don't understand; if you advertise a 'true story' I assume it's because you were enthralled by the truth. But if you have to change all facts to make it more appealing, then exactly what appealed to you in the first place? That's the paradox I don't understand about the dramatization of true stories.

[sadoeuphemist]

I'm pretty sure this was never advertised as a true story? Because that would be ridiculous.

The broader answer is, because we all understand stories according to our distinct viewpoint. We as humans are not objective, omniscient creatures, we cannot grasp complex historical events as pure fact, we naturally filter it down to the information that is relevant to us. One person might look at, say, the election of Barack Obama, and see a brand new hope for America. Another might look at the exact same sequence of events and see a country beginning its descent into ruin. And that personal narrative we get from factual events can then be taken and expanded into something largely fictional.

I don't think people are ever fascinated by the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, they're fascinated when reality lines up with or specifically challenges their preconceptions.

[mrosa]

I'm pretty sure this was never advertised as a true story?

I never said it had been. That wasn't the point of my post, but since it's being discussed anyway, I chipped my two cents about it.

One person might look at, say, the election of Barack Obama, and see a brand new hope for America. Another might look at the exact same sequence of events and see a country beginning its descent into ruin.

That has nothing to do with the point. Obama's victory is a historical fact, it can't be changed, regardless of what you think of him. Saying that Mitt Ronney lost because Obama used black magic he learned as a boy in Jakarta, now that would be more in line with what we're talking about, the fabrication of bullshit over facts.

I don't think people are ever fascinated by the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, they're fascinated when reality lines up with or specifically challenges their preconceptions.

Most movies nowadays are based on true stories, most use 'true story' as their main selling point. Watch any trailer about a true story, and you'll see that. Watch any true story movie, and the first thing the movie will show on the screen is 'a true story'. That's what sells. Compare that to older movies like Lawrence of Arabia or Mozart, which, although based on real events, never in the movie describe themselves as true stories. Things have definitely changed in the sense that people clearly watch movies because they are advertised as true stories.

[sadoeuphemist]

Uh, I really don't think most movies now are based on true stories. What is even out right now? Oz the Great and Powerful? Place Beyond the Pines? The Croods? GI Joe Retaliation? 42 is the only movie in the IMDb top ten that's based on a true story. You're mistaking a change in marketing jargon for a change in the public's viewing desires.

[mrosa]

Well, from last year:

Argo
Lincoln
Zero Dark Thirty
Lo Impossible
The Sessions
Hitchcock
The Ice Man
No
A Royal Affair

We can add: The Social Network, The King's Speech, Moneyball, The Iron Lady, My Week with Marilyn, W.E., 127 Hours, The Fighter, Animal Kingdom, The Way Back, An Education, The Blind Side, Invictus, Julie & Julia, The Last Station, The Young Victoria, Coco Avant Chanel, Frost/Nixon, Milk, Changeling, The Duchess, Defiance, La Môme, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Into the Wild, American Gangster, Le scaphandre et le papillon, Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of our Fathers, The Queen, The Last King of Scotland, The Pursuit of Happyness, The Devil Wears Prada, United 93, The Good Shepherd, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich, Walk the Line, Cinderella Man, The Aviator, Ray, Hotel Rwanda, Vera Drake, Kinsey...

And from this year we'll get:

The Monuments Men
12 Years a Slave
The Butler
Captain Phillips
American Hustle

... so far...

[mrosa]

I've said this before, but I don't see why fiction writers are obligated to stick to historical fact any more than any other sort of fact.

Perhaps because my background and standard for all things is literature, I have to say that historical novels go to great lengths to be as accurate as possible, and when they deal with real-life people, try to reconstruct their personalities from existing documents as painstakingly as possible, and to make them as complex as possible.

When I compare The Manhattan Projects to novels like Eco's The Name of the Rose, Mario Vargas Llosa's The War of the End of the World and The Feast of the Goat, or José Saramago's Baltasar and Blimunda, or even Alan Moore's From Hell, I have no other judgement for it other than calling it a lazy piece of historical garbage.

I understand my standards are not the common standards of our mediocre age that celebrates bullshit shows like Da Vinci's Demons and Spartacus: Blood and Sand, Rome, The Borgia, The Tudors, but they're the ones I have I won't compromise them because history deserves better than being turned into a series of mindless, juvenile jokes in a crappy little comic book.

[sadoeuphemist]

Is this any different from my example of science fiction that doesn't use actual science? Like, doesn't science deserve better that Star Trek or whatever? Or, more broadly, any form of human knowledge. Does fact deserve better than to be turned into fiction?

Manhattan Projects clearly isn't a historical novel, it's completely and blatantly ahistorical. There's a difference between a historical work and one that happens to use historical figures. I would compare it to, like, Batman fighting Benedict Arnold's ghost from hell.

[mrosa]

Is this any different from my example of science fiction that doesn't use actual science? Like, doesn't science deserve better that Star Trek or whatever?

Science fiction has fiction right in the name. It's honest.

Manhattan Projects clearly isn't a historical novel, it's completely and blatantly ahistorical.

Then why are the real life characters important? What do they add to the story that fictional, thinly-disguised versions couldn't add? Hickman doesn't have an answer for that, the story doesn't have an answer for that. It's just irresponsible, juvenile use of real life people to draw cheap laughs.

[sadoeuphemist]

Dude, I'm pretty sure it's called historical fiction too. No one's billing Da Vinci's Demons et al as documentaries.

And I could ask you the opposite, what is the point in using thinly-disguised versions instead of the actual names? Would this be somehow less offensive to you if he was named Groppenheimer or whatever? Why? We'd still all know who he was supposed to be.

[arbre_rieur]

Funny you should mention Da Vinci's Demons.

[mrosa]

Yes, I read that a few days ago. Should be right up his alley.

[icon_uk]

DaVinci's Demons, is to Leonardo as "Torchwood" is to "The Sarah Jane Adventures".