So 'Dark Mary Marvel' is....

[K-DoG7p7]

....possessed by DeSaad?

Fuck you, Grant Morrison.

what?


whats wrong with that?

its better then "Hi .. i'm mary marvel.. and i'm suddenly gone evil now.."

Kraken is possesed by Granny
and Dan Turpin is possesed by Darkside himself and so on..

Its better shes possesed then just bad.. makes it easier to redeem her :P

[Flâneur]

I agree about Mary, but Grant just isn't my type.

You might want to reconsider that, Grant's actually not that bad with his gear off. Nasty appendix scar though.

[K-DoG7p7]

Also.. was it just me.. or did it seem like WW was about to snap out of it....

[Solaris]

Here's what I don't like about the "good character possessed/controlled by evil character" schtick:

It's way overused.

Seriously.

And, it's an easy "out" for the writer. Yeah, if it's done really well, it *can* create new twists and interesting situations... but it takes a lot of work to do it really well, and honestly, I'd much rather see a writer deal with a "good" character veering a bit from their standard mode as they deal with some new (or old and long-buried) internal issue: we get to see them work through it, to deal with any "less than good" things they've done and in the end take responsibility for those things, and grow into a more complex, wiser person.

Or, if the character is to be scrapped, you see them living their "fall from grace" and never getting out of it.

In life, even the best people have to deal with shit. Often, we misjudge the "truly good" people as always having been good, as never having to deal with pain or suffering or rage or anger or hopelessness, or the little dark whisperings of the mind and heart. But life is full of opposites: Love or Hate, Creation or Destruction, Truth or Lies, Sacrifice or Indulgence. I always say "Never truly anger an Empath---because they have depths of darkness you *don't* want to see." Empathic people have the rep of always being kind and loving, of always turning the other cheek, of always "rising above the 'normal' response to someone else being nasty." Thing is, in order to have the capacity to do those things, they *also* have to have the capacity to do, and be, their opposite---and if you ever anger one of these people to the point of going beyond their normal choice for good and right... find a bunker quick! It's going to be very ugly.

People who are truly heroic, who are truly good, weren't born that way, nor did they suddenly pop out of a magic box that way---instead, it's the result of a series of choices, big and little every day, that got them to where they're at. But humans are fallible, and even the best person in the world can have a bad day, a bad moment, where they choose "for the dark side" instead. At that point, the true measure of their goodness is if they go back and amend as they can whatever damage they caused, that they truly repent of (acknowledge, take responsibility, and are sorrowed for) what they did, and take to heart what they learned from it---hopefully, to never do the same again.

If the writers *had* to take Mary Marvel down a dark, sadistic path, I think it would've been much more realistic if they'd done it this way:

She was raised to be good and to do good. She never gave a lot of thought to it---it's just what she learned was expected of her... and the admiration she got for it made her feel good inside. But, then some crisis or trauma raises old ghosts of a time when she was hurt or abused... or, something happens that begins that insidious whisper inside to "just enjoy it"... and she starts to do so, in little ways. As time goes on, she finds she likes it, and quits listening to the "good" voice in her head and heart... and she sinks further into it. Then, at some point, something happens that "wakes her up" to seeing outside herself, to feeling things from the other person's POV---and she feels pain and horror over what she's done to others, feels remorse, and seeks redemption.

This kind of thing does happen in real life, to a lesser or greater extent---so again, it's all in the details, in the character's thoughts and feelings, that a writer can either do something really great with it, or crap out.

Gotta run, catch you guys later!

[PatrickG]

Here's what I don't like about the "good character possessed/controlled by evil character" schtick:

It's way overused.

Seriously.

And, it's an easy "out" for the writer. Yeah, if it's done really well, it *can* create new twists and interesting situations... but it takes a lot of work to do it really well, and honestly, I'd much rather see a writer deal with a "good" character veering a bit from their standard mode as they deal with some new (or old and long-buried) internal issue: we get to see them work through it, to deal with any "less than good" things they've done and in the end take responsibility for those things, and grow into a more complex, wiser person.

Except in this case, I think it was supposed to be the setup Countdown and everything else was supposed to build towards because the whole point here is the idea that young female super-heroes act like evil tramps because they're being controlled by sadistic old men.

I will guarantee you the whole thing was supposed to be meta-commentary from day one and it just whizzed past everyone else that worked on it and that Grant may have neglected to tell everyone WHY he wanted Mary corrupted for his story.

But the whole thing is innocence corrupted as an indictment of corrupting innocence, much like his later Animal Man is grim 'n gritty as an indictment of grim 'n gritty.

[stealthwise]

Except in this case, I think it was supposed to be the setup Countdown and everything else was supposed to build towards because the whole point here is the idea that young female super-heroes act like evil tramps because they're being controlled by sadistic old men.

I will guarantee you the whole thing was supposed to be meta-commentary from day one and it just whizzed past everyone else that worked on it and that Grant may have neglected to tell everyone WHY he wanted Mary corrupted for his story.

But the whole thing is innocence corrupted as an indictment of corrupting innocence, much like his later Animal Man is grim 'n gritty as an indictment of grim 'n gritty.

So Grant Morrison is the Paul Verhoeven of comics?

[NickThompson]

I just want her to hit more people with Green Lanterns.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

It seems to me that the important question had become this:

There's no doubt that the stated intent, and probably the intent Grant had when he came up with the idea was to comment on how 'dirty, leering men'..... i.e. Comics Creators, relish taking these female icons of innocence and corrupting them

The question is, how much has Grant slipped from comment on this phenomenon and become simply a participant in the same? In other words, is he critisizing the DeSaads of the industry? Or has he, in part, become DeSaad? Has he gone from commentary to self-gratification? And if so, how much, and why, and what merit meaning would the self-gratification now have to general readerships?

[K-DoG7p7]

It seems to me that the important question had become this:

There's no doubt that the stated intent, and probably the intent Grant had when he came up with the idea was to comment on how 'dirty, leering men'..... i.e. Comics Creators, relish taking these female icons of innocence and corrupting them

The question is, how much has Grant slipped from comment on this phenomenon and become simply a participant in the same? In other words, is he critisizing the DeSaads of the industry? Or has he, in part, become DeSaad?

Like.. Whooo

[Kevinroc]

I'd think that Final Crisis actually containing the true ending to Batman RIP was more worthy of scorn than another hackneyed plot point in a comic book crossover.

[bfrank]

That's what I'm saying. If anything, it fixed what happened in Countdown.

no,it didn't...

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I'd think that Final Crisis actually containing the true ending to Batman RIP was more worthy of scorn than another hackneyed plot point in a comic book crossover.

Didn't read Batman R.I.P. What happened there?

[LtMarvel]

....possessed by DeSaad?

Fuck you, Grant Morrison.

Huh? That was so much better than Darkseid showing up at Mary's apartment and say "Wanna go evil?" in Countdown!

[K-DoG7p7]

Huh? That was so much better than Darkseid showing up at Mary's apartment and say "Wanna go evil?" in Countdown!

Only problem.. is that shes going back to that post Final Crisis.. as see on this JSA cover



But then again.. the Solicitation seems to indicate that shes helping out the JSA..
(wearing black to fool Adam?)

[LtMarvel]

It seems to me that the important question had become this:

There's no doubt that the stated intent, and probably the intent Grant had when he came up with the idea was to comment on how 'dirty, leering men'..... i.e. Comics Creators, relish taking these female icons of innocence and corrupting them

The question is, how much has Grant slipped from comment on this phenomenon and become simply a participant in the same? In other words, is he critisizing the DeSaads of the industry? Or has he, in part, become DeSaad? Has he gone from commentary to self-gratification? And if so, how much, and why, and what merit meaning would the self-gratification now have to general readerships?

Ok, I understand a your point of view a bit better now. And I agree with some other posters about communication issues between series' creators/editors.

Having the evil New Gods possess humans and become slightly merged with their hosts...I mean it's not just Mary that got possessed. (Although what does pink hair say about DeSaad? Or hey...could it be an injoke about the route Roy Thomas wanted to go with Mary when his revival of all things Shazam was cut short?)