DC finished off its big event of 2008 this week with Final Crisis #7. Naturally, there have been a lot of thought about the issue.
Evan Waters really appreciated the payoff:
But what FINAL CRISIS does right that so many of these events don’t is in delivering the payoff. FINAL CRISIS #7 is the issue of triumph and glory, and too often as of late, as a result of trying to raise the stakes as high as possible, superhero victories have been so pyrrhic and brief as to be unsatisfying. Here, we take our time, we see Dr. Sivana and Lex Luthor smiling as they help put together a machine to rewrite the laws of physics, we see Supergirl and Wonder Woman tell the story of how the universe was saved to a room of waiting children before they go to deep-freeze, we get payoffs to arcs that weren’t even technically part of this crossover, we get a sense that the world might actually become more interesting as a consequence of all this.
Timbotron thought that the story didn’t work:
Well. I’ve been posting about this book all over the interwebs, but here’s the main deal. This story is a failure as a narrative. It certainly had some wonderful dialogue, some fantastic art, great ideas, and neat plot twists. But the story does not hold up. If Final Crisis were the alphabet, it would have been A, C, J, K, M, D, E, X, Z. So basically, out of order and missing a lot of pieces. There is too much that doesn’t make sense for this comic to be considered a success. There are too many glaring plot problems. I’m totally unclear on the resolution and current status of most of the key players. In the spirit of Final Crisis, here’s a list of my first thoughts and questions in no particular order:
While Danielle Ni Dhighe has interesting thoughts about Grant Morrison’s writing style:
Final Crisis writer Grant Morrison has admitted to heavy use of psychedelic drugs in the past as a way to expand his consciousness and once said that he thought David Lynch films reflected real life. Some of his stories in Doom Patrol were inspired by Dadaism, and his later work on The Invisibles was influenced by Robert Anton Wilson, Aleister Crowley, and William S. Burroughs. Although he’s also written more mainstream comics, like JLA and New X-Men, Morrison at his best is a mad genius who likes to challenge his readers.
I don’t think Morrison tries to be deliberately confusing, he simply applies his own internal logic to his works. Lynch refuses to explain his films because he believes that it’s more interesting to see how viewers interpret them for themselves. I think Morrison needs to be read the same way. Neither creator is talking down to the audience, they actually want the audience to think.
So what do you think?