• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

DC Comics Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
J.M. DeMatteis tends to wantonly use real world philosophical concepts, regardless how much they contradict the established canon for either Marvel or DC.
 
J.M. DeMatteis is the guy who probably read a lot of Lovecraft when he was younger and so writes every comic Cosmic using 1-A terms.

That's probably an exaggeration, but it's staggering how much of the more impressive Marvel and DC cosmic feats were written by him.
 
Nah, he is just extremely into Eastern metaphysical spirituality.

The problem is that he is using a shared playground, and that far more prominent established concepts contradict his claims.
 
EgyptianGodRaw said:
Monitors were unimpressive during countdown .
Click to expand...
To be fair... nothing came out of countdown looking good.

Except Superb*tch Pansy... but i guess negatives cancel out.
 
True enough, and Death of the New Gods is just as bad i.m.h.o.

Btw: Mind the language Jared.
 
Jim starlin explained in an interview that the main purpose of the storyline was to get rid of new gods from the DC.
 
Especially considering that it strongly conflicted with the Final Crisis event, and everything established about the Source.
 
Yes. I am aware of this.

Although perhaps we should insert a copy of the scan into The Source profile page?
 
It's interesting, because the New Guardians storyline of Green Lantern referred to the Life Equation as the Source. The original New Gods comics also referred to the Source as the Life Equation.

It was also stated to be the only thing capable of stopping Darkseid if he got his hands on the Anti-Life Equation. Grant Morrison's statement about the Source being an ultimate concept seem to show why the Life Equation is dominant over the Anti-Life Equation.
 
Well, the Source should vastly transcend all life, so we can probably chalk that up as an inconsistency between different writers.
 
Well, the problem is that the word "Source" is thrown around a lot these days in DC Comics and refers to multiple concepts and entities. See the case above regarding DeMatteis. Grant Morrison has also used the word "Source" to refer to at least three different concepts in the past.

I do find it alarming that both Jack Kirby and Robert Venditti both referred to the Source as the Life Equation though. There is some consistency there.

However, both Morrison and Kirby used it within the context of the New Gods, where the Life Equation is considered to be a part of the Source. Since the New Gods largely embrace the Life aspect of the Source, I believe that is why they refer to the Life Equation as the Source.
 
I agree. The Source is referred at one point (by Jack Kirby) to be "the All and Beyond the All."
 
I added a link to the scan to the Source profile page.
 
EgyptianGodRaw said:
According to the writer Demattis the void is an aspect of God

http://i.imgur.com/Mj9OINy.png
Click to expand...
This is most interesting! DeMatteis uses the term "Source" to refer to the "Unmanifest Void." I also wonder if his version of "God" is the same as the Presence or if it is another being entirely. It's interesting that he refers to the "Unmanifest Void" as being merely "God's Unconscious."

I'm beginning to wonder if this is the Overvoid or another concept altogether.
 
I am going to read through the New 52 Voice's appearances, and some Spectre storylines to make a profile for The Voice / Logos.
 
Kuwabara! said:
EgyptianGodRaw said:
According to the writer Demattis the void is an aspect of God

http://i.imgur.com/Mj9OINy.png
Click to expand...
This is most interesting! DeMatteis uses the term "Source" to refer to the "Unmanifest Void." I also wonder if his version of "God" is the same as the Presence or if it is another being entirely. It's interesting that he refers to the "Unmanifest Void" as being merely "God's Unconscious."
I'm beginning to wonder if this is the Overvoid or another concept altogether.
Click to expand...
Overvoid is another name for the void . There is a spectre comic which refers to the void as the void beyond all the voids , the infinite nothingness , The cosmic emptiness that existed before thought , form , shape and even you . JM demattis ops the characters he writes for example 1A Spectre ,Swamp thing , Eternity and oblivion .
 
Yes, I remember that one. The Void was even white once the Spectre was "erased". About two pages later, the same Void was described as All That Is (as it was depicted by the same white space).

If the Source/Void that DeMatteis was referring to is the Overvoid, can we even accept it as being valid material? It effectively states that the Overvoid is a merely aspect of "God" (whatever or whoever "God" is).
 
DeMatteis was more likely referring to the concept of Brahman, rather than God as he actually is within DC Comics.
 
I wondered that myself, because the Justice League Dark story where this is taken from is primarily based on Hindu beliefs. Although, in his own words, he said that the Overvoid was "an Aspect of God." Maybe Brahman is the "God" he is referring to?

EDIT: In the scene, he refers to the Void as being both "God's Unconscious" and the "Sea of Brahman". Is he distinguishing between God and Brahman?
 
You are mixing more things up than he is, now.

He said that the God who emerged from the void is an aspect of God.

This makes sense from a Hindu Cosmology in a way, as the God who emerges from and returns to nothingness is Brahma, who's existence goes through cyclical srishti (creations) and pralaya (annihilation), and after 100 Brahma-Years (1 Brahma-Day is like 4.8 Billion years) he, alongside everything else in existence will enter the Mahapralaya, which is a complete annihilation. But even Mahapralaya would be just an aspect of Brahman.

However, this does not make any sense whatsoever within DC / Vertigo Cosmology. We cannot equate Pralaya the character with the Overvoid, nor assume that The Presence that emerged from the void is an aspect of a greater Presence.
 
Uh, no. He said he was referring to the "Primal Source of Creation". When asked to clarify whether this "Source" is more powerful than "God" (as the Overvoid is more powerful than the Presence), he said it was an "Aspect of God". Simple.
 
Sweet. So when DeMatteis mentioned "God", he is not referring to the Presence exactly, but more pointed towards Hindu spirituality.
 
I am not sure that the current discussion brings anything constructive to the wiki.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

PrinceStories
DC cosmology questions
Replies
23
Views
6K
VeryGoofyToddler2
VeryGoofyToddler2
VeryGoofyToddler2
DC/Vertigo: Profiles Clean-Up
Replies
13
Views
2K
VeryGoofyToddler2
VeryGoofyToddler2
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
DC Comics: The Light of Creation/The Great Darkness/The Presence (Vertigo) - Clean-up
2 3 4
Replies
136
Views
11K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Elizio33
  • Locked
DC/Crisis Cosmology Revision
8 9 10
Replies
363
Views
37K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Elizio33
An upgrade for The Presence
3 4 5
Replies
163
Views
18K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top