General DC Comics Discussion Thread

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

The Overvoid cannot recognize him, and for God he is only paper, and the Source is only ink. I mean, even Source and Overvoid are written on the map

To remain “Unknowable” would lose its meaning because calling a white part unknowable would make it known to be the same as the other two.

Also, the White Page we see outside the Multiverse where it explicitly highlights on the Map “out there” beyond the Source Wall are the three. The Map is meant to depict what it’s sort of looks like, it’s not as I mentioned, drawn to scale. The Map technically would be infinite and include the Unknown label buts it’s being read off from a Comicbook. It also isn’t mentioned that the Source is the “Ink.”

 

[Xearesay]

Even the statement that people are trying to point to doesn't contradict anything. The Smile being called a "place" doesn't mean it's not God. It quite literally is called God in the very next sentence. Not to mention, the Smile itself was also called the mouth of God in issue 6. You can easily read Issue 20 of Doctor Fate and issue 10 of Spectre and see that he's referring to the same thing. Especially since the Oversoul is first mentioned in Doctor Fate comic and is carried over when Hal connects to it in Spectre Vol 4.

That wasn’t the argument. I said that the title of God given to the Smile isn’t being used interchangeably with God as in the Presence because it’s directly differentiated on the panel. I’ve even written the text and highlighted the differentiation to make it as visible as possible. The Smile being considered a place in the same scan only further supports the already existing differentiation between the two, along with all of the other things I mentioned such as The Presence being simply a part of a Godhead and being unable to kill beings of the CU who also outright mock the belief that he’s supreme. So the argument being made here that “it’s called God so it’s the Presence” is wrong because it’s out of context. Spectres Oversoul also isn’t The Smile so I don’t know why that keeps getting brought up.

 

[Brahmatman]

To remain “Unknowable” would lose its meaning because calling a white part unknowable would make it known to be the same as the other two.

This strongly characterizes him as a more distant being or entity, this is normal for an absolute god

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

That wasn’t the argument. I said that the title of God given to the Smile isn’t being used interchangeably with God as in the Presence because it’s directly differentiated on the panel. I’ve even written the text and highlighted the differentiation to make it as visible as possible. The Smile being considered a place in the same scan only further supports the already existing differentiation between the two, along with all of the other things I mentioned such as The Presence being simply a part of a Godhead and being unable to kill beings of the CU who also outright mock the belief that he’s supreme.

Except your making up you’re own headcanon trying to elude that scan meant the Presence in Doctor Fate when Matteis hasn’t mentioned the Presence by name in that comic.

Spectre comics is when it actually appeared the full Godhead. In Phantom Stranger, God assumed form in the form of a Dog, who represent the Voice, an aspect of the Presence/God.

You’re acquitting the Voice who is in the Creation to equal the being that transcends all forms, thoughts, and matter as full Godhead to the Dog?

 

[Jolman1]

This is also why I don't believe this Spiritual Cosmology will turn out any good. Morrison works were screwed up and can't be combined with his older or newer stuff because they let Snyder and other authors take precedence over his works. With DeMatteis potentially qualifying for Tier 0, according to Ultima, and people trying to force all of these other works into it, it's going to either create inconsistencies or outright prevent the upgrade altogether because some other writer said something different.

Point out the contradictions between these cosmologies, and not that “they are just different”.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Point out the contradictions between these cosmologies, and not that “they are just different”.

Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters. No one writes his characters like he does nor follow the theory that Meher Baba(his spiritual teacher) did propose.

 

[Jolman1]

Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters. No one writes his characters like he does nor follow the theory that Meher Baba(his spiritual teacher) did propose.

You don't understand what I'm writing about, do you? I know that even without your words, but how does this cancel the placement of one cosmology into another? For example, the scale of John’s cosmology don't extend beyond the SOG, and therefore fits well into Morrison’s.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

You don't understand what I'm writing about, do you? I know that even without your words, but how does this cancel the placement of one cosmology into another? For example, the scale of John’s cosmology don't extend beyond the SOG, and therefore fits well into Morrison’s.

You asked of the previous person said. Which he/she included the work of Matteis. I was specifically going in for his works and why it can’t tie in with the others. The rest can be answered by whom you asked the question to. Rest assured I know why you’re asking for about continuity and my response certainly didn’t come from nothing about your points.

 

[Deagonx]

Correct, which is why I find it strange that people are trying to hand wave his statements on how he intended God to be in his comics. Especially when we're talking about DeMatteis Cosmology, not Morrison, Gaiman, Johns or whoever you want to mention. Their statements do not matter on this site for a Cosmology they're not a part of. That's the point of the split. That's why it's called DeMatteis Cosmology.

Even the statement that people are trying to point to doesn't contradict anything. The Smile being called a "place" doesn't mean it's not God. It quite literally is called God in the very next sentence. Not to mention, the Smile itself was also called the mouth of God in issue 6. You can easily read Issue 20 of Doctor Fate and issue 10 of Spectre and see that he's referring to the same thing. Especially since the Oversoul is first mentioned in Doctor Fate comic and is carried over when Hal connects to it in Spectre Vol 4.

This is also why I don't believe this Spiritual Cosmology will turn out any good. Morrison works were screwed up and can't be combined with his older or newer stuff because they let Snyder and other authors take precedence over his works. With DeMatteis potentially qualifying for Tier 0, according to Ultima, and people trying to force all of these other works into it, it's going to either create inconsistencies or outright prevent the upgrade altogether because some other writer said something different.

Fully agree with this.

The Map states things that are outside. It's not saying Source = Overvoid = Unknowable.

It's saying outside the Multiverse are the Source, the Overvoid, and the Unknowable. Yes, I agree with Morrsion's view that Source = Overvoid but the Map is not trying to connect that idea but rather what's out there in the endless Void beyond the Multiverse.

I disagree. The map directly states that the Source is the Overvoid, and the Overvoid was directly called "Unknowable" in Final Crisis. It seems very natural IMO that the best reading of that section is that those three are one and the same.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I disagree. The map directly states that the Source is the Overvoid, and the Overvoid was directly called "Unknowable" in Final Crisis. It seems very natural IMO that the best reading of that section is that those three are one and the same.

I don’t really disagree but the point of the map is locations of things. Those three are outside beyond the Multiverse, I don’t think the Map is saying they’re the same thing because that wasn’t the point.

I don’t really think the Unknowable is the same thing. I do think that Overvoid, Source, and Unknowable, I feel are representation of the infinite page/Void represented differently. Equal in status and hierarchy but not exactly the same thing.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Also, the Unknowable like the Source is a title to a certain thing outside the Multiverse. It’s not meant to be equated, if it’s describes as an adjective. So an unknowable Monitor wouldn’t refer to the Unknowable.

 

[Antvasima]

Correct, which is why I find it strange that people are trying to hand wave his statements on how he intended God to be in his comics. Especially when we're talking about DeMatteis Cosmology, not Morrison, Gaiman, Johns or whoever you want to mention. Their statements do not matter on this site for a Cosmology they're not a part of. That's the point of the split. That's why it's called DeMatteis Cosmology.

Even the statement that people are trying to point to doesn't contradict anything. The Smile being called a "place" doesn't mean it's not God. It quite literally is called God in the very next sentence. Not to mention, the Smile itself was also called the mouth of God in issue 6. You can easily read Issue 20 of Doctor Fate and issue 10 of Spectre and see that he's referring to the same thing. Especially since the Oversoul is first mentioned in Doctor Fate comic and is carried over when Hal connects to it in Spectre Vol 4.

This is also why I don't believe this Spiritual Cosmology will turn out any good. Morrison works were screwed up and can't be combined with his older or newer stuff because they let Snyder and other authors take precedence over his works. With DeMatteis potentially qualifying for Tier 0, according to Ultima, and people trying to force all of these other works into it, it's going to either create inconsistencies or outright prevent the upgrade altogether because some other writer said something different.

I also agree with this.

 

[Brahmatman]

You asked of the previous person said. Which he/she included the work of Matteis. I was specifically going in for his works and why it can’t tie in with the others. The rest can be answered by whom you asked the question to. Rest assured I know why you’re asking for about continuity and my response certainly didn’t come from nothing about your points.

Since he is still writing his work within a specific universe, his work will be subject to the official cosmology that has been established literally on a legal level. If some author says that his character will be stronger than Overvoid (without changing the cosmology at the official level), then these words will not have any weight (with the exception of such wikis) until the editors accept this on a more thorough level. All gods still live in the Sphere of the Gods, which means that any statements about God being outside the DC multiverse without editorial acceptance will be false.
Morrison rolled back the canon and Starlin's words that Darkseid fought the Source, which at that moment was the other side of life. This was accepted as a given on the wiki, canceling Starlin's words, although he is the same author as DeMatteis. Why then at certain moments the words of the authors are taken over the rest of the universe, and some authors are canceled in favor of something else?
Why does the cosmology of one author (although no different cosmologies exist, it is just someone else’s invention) stands above the official cosmology of another author, which the editors accepted?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Since he is still writing his work within a specific universe, his work will be subject to the official cosmology that has been established literally on a legal level.

There shouldn’t a split in the first place by your logic.

If some author says that his character will be stronger than Overvoid (without changing the cosmology at the official level), then these words will not have any weight (with the exception of such wikis) until the editors accept this on a more thorough level. All gods still live in the Sphere of the Gods, which means that any statements about God being outside the DC multiverse without editorial acceptance will be false.

I don’t see where “all” is mentioned especially if one wasn’t shape by beliefs. The core of the Sphere runs on belief and magic which a certain God transcends especially since it was established that God’s power was used by beings beyond the Gods to create the Multiverse which eventually the Sphere pop as a result.

Morrison rolled back the canon and Starlin's words that Darkseid fought the Source, which at that moment was the other side of life. This was accepted as a given on the wiki, canceling Starlin's words, although he is the same author as DeMatteis. Why then at certain moments the words of the authors are taken over the rest of the universe, and some authors are canceled in favor of something else?

Except the story highlights that was not the full Source? A glimpse of what the Source entailed which was later added since the Source is the creator and precognitor of both Life and Anti-Life and is contained by it. What happen in Death of the New Gods was just both side of the aspect of the Source were separated by the three Gods of Roman, Norse, and Greek. No conherent scaling if you believed that these Gods > Source.

Why does the cosmology of one author (although no different cosmologies exist, it is just someone else’s invention) stands above the official cosmology of another author, which the editors accepted?

The intention isn’t to say different cosmology rather different interpretation of a cosmology.

 

[Jolman1]

I was specifically going in for his works and why it can’t tie in with the others.

And why?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

And why?

You’ve asked something I already answered.

Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters. No one writes his characters like he does nor follow the theory that Meher Baba(his spiritual teacher) did propose.

 

[Antvasima]

I strongly agree about keeping DeMatteis' cosmology separate.

 

[Averroes1]

Grant has said a couple of times that the map is supposed to follow some Kabbalistic attributes in nature, the Kabbalah posits that God has about three aspects, or forms that it took. The Ain is the non-existence preceding God, the ain sof is God, and the ain sof aur is the infinite light of God.

Grant, I believe, did personally think of the Source as the Ain Soph Aur, the infinite light (or in this case, energy) of God. And the map does say that there is specifically three things beyond the Source wall, which Grant has called God.

Due to the Kabbalah calling these three manifestations "God", I believe Grant probably also called the Source, "the unknowable" and the Overvoid "God". Hence, why the Source was referred to as the Overvoid or the white page multiple times, it's simply synonymous with God.

 

[Jolman1]

You’ve asked something I already answered.

Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters.

Does drawing information from religion prevent one from placing one cosmology within another? Are you serious?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters.

Does drawing information from religion prevent one from placing one cosmology within another? Are you serious?

It creates an interpretation of how the Cosmology is defined based solely on the author intent. Any addition to contradict such notions is the reason for the split.

 

[Jolman1]

It creates an interpretation of how the Cosmology is defined based solely on the author intent.

We are talking about placing one cosmology into another, and the fact that he mainly focuses on Christianity and Hinduism is in no way relevant.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

We are talking about placing one cosmology into another, and the fact that he mainly focuses on Christianity and Hinduism is in no way relevant.

The simple premise is that. How would you put one Cosmology with another, if the information on how the Cosmology is structured is contradicted with each other. If it weren’t such a problem, then the split shouldn’t ever had happen. Due to how Matteis writes, yes, the religious view is heavily needed.

 

[Antvasima]

It is highly relevant. Creating a nonsensical patchwork just to squeeze as illogically high statistics as possible out of every character is not acceptable, and we have already had and concluded the discussion of a split cosmology over and over and over. Please stop interfering.

 

[Averroes1]

all of this can be fixed with Dream, unironically. Dream is proof that the entire cosmology is not a fixed entity but rather a completely fluid nature bound by belief, interpretation and perception, but we choose to believe it as an objective structure.

 

[Ramasugita11]

It is highly relevant. Creating a nonsensical patchwork just to squeeze as illogically high statistics as possible out of every character is not acceptable, and we have already had and concluded the discussion of a split cosmology over and over and over. Please stop interfering.

No, You are wrong, I agree if cosmology is separated but it will be clearer after the blog is updated

 

[Elizio33]

Do you mean to say that The Great Darkness>God in Swamp Thing #75? If so then I disagree with that, The Great Darkness in Swamp Thing comics is precisely the fundamental entity being the opposite of The Light that determines existence where the interplay two what runs the entire cycle of creation. Even in the next few panels, it is clear that God truly encompasses both The Great Darkness and The Light.

@PrinceStories Sorry for this. But this thread has gone off the rails enough. The Great Darkness said that before light (God), the darkness was. The purpose of balancing God's light was solely to soothe the Great Darkness from its identity crisis. Although the outcome of the story resulted in the Great Darkness and God combining and seen as dualistic forces, darkness is still prior to all. Even if Allan Moore intended God to encompass the Great Darkness and the Light, How can we say that this idea is still relevant in the interpretation of the DCU by Grant Morrison, Scott Snyder, James Tynion and Joshua Williamson?

 

[PrinceStories]

Do you mean to say that The Great Darkness>God in Swamp Thing #75? If so then I disagree with that, The Great Darkness in Swamp Thing comics is precisely the fundamental entity being the opposite of The Light that determines existence where the interplay two what runs the entire cycle of creation. Even in the next few panels, it is clear that God truly encompasses both The Great Darkness and The Light.

@PrinceStories Sorry for this. But this thread has gone off the rails enough. The Great Darkness said that before light (God), the darkness was. The purpose of balancing God's light was solely to soothe the Great Darkness from its identity crisis. Although the outcome of the story resulted in the Great Darkness and God combining and seen as dualistic forces, darkness is still prior to all. Even if Allan Moore intended God to encompass the Great Darkness and the Light, How can we say that this idea is still relevant in the interpretation of the DCU by Grant Morrison, Scott Snyder, James Tynion and Joshua Williamson?

I see, I also don't want to get out off topic that thread which is muddled with current cosmology complaints.

 

[Elizio33]

I see, I also don't want to get out off topic that thread which is muddled with current cosmology complaints.

Understandable. I was just saying that we have no hard evidence that God always encompasses the Great Darkness in the writers' stories used in Crisis Cosmology, as Moore originally intended in his stories.

 

[Brahmatman]

There shouldn’t a split in the first place by your logic.

I asked for proof of the official separation of Vertigo and Dc cosmologies, as obviously there were none. I even provided evidence from the Dc guidebook that the plot of Vertigo is canon for all of Dc.

I don’t see where “all” is mentioned especially if one wasn’t shape by beliefs. The core of the Sphere runs on belief and magic which a certain God transcends especially since it was established that God’s power was used by beings beyond the Gods to create the Multiverse which eventually the Sphere pop as a result.

You know that the gods are more objective and existed long before the multiverse (physical)? The Endless are also outside the gods, but this doesn’t give them much of a qualitative difference

Except the story highlights that was not the full Source? A glimpse of what the Source entailed which was later added since the Source is the creator and precognitor of both Life and Anti-Life and is contained by it. What happen in Death of the New Gods was just both side of the aspect of the Source were separated by the three Gods of Roman, Norse, and Greek. No conherent scaling if you believed that these Gods > Source.

You don't seem to know that the Source used to be the other side of Anti-Life and didn't contain it? Moreover, the Source even had a personal enemy who intended to destroy it.

The intention isn’t to say different cosmology rather different interpretation of a cosmology.

The same place can have many different descriptions and interpretations, but this does not make the place a different cosmology.

 

[Tiktime]

The intention isn’t to say different cosmology rather different interpretation of a cosmology.

Well the point of the question doesn't change much, only in the question of why the interpretation of one is higher than the other

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I asked for proof of the official separation of Vertigo and Dc cosmologies, as obviously there were none. I even provided evidence from the Dc guidebook that the plot of Vertigo is canon for all of Dc.

You know that the gods are more objective and existed long before the multiverse (physical)? The Endless are also outside the gods, but this doesn’t give them much of a qualitative difference

No, they are much above the gods as explained by how gods function on belief and dreams which is being expressed by the Dream King himself, as he personifies said concept.

You don't seem to know that the Source used to be the other side of Anti-Life and didn't contain it? Moreover, the Source even had a personal enemy who intended to destroy it.

Who didn't win.

The same place can have many different descriptions and interpretations, but this does not make the place a different cosmology.

Except when Cosmology establishes a certain premise not meant to be contradicted. You can't talk about what I said directly and not think about the other stuff to highlights the reason why there's a split.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Well the point of the question doesn't change much, only in the question of why the interpretation of one is higher than the other

No one is higher but what's already established to make a Cosmology can be contradicted. If what information is said to be the core of what makes a Cosmology from one author's intention then changing that makes a different stance on whatever it is. That changes the meaning and intention of the original work and the status quo is ultimately changed.

I'm neutral on the split, however, we can not just say it doesn't work at all. Plus, I recommend, if you don't believe the Split to make a thread on why. Simply asking me these things isn't going anywhere.

 

[Brahmatman]

It is highly relevant. Creating a nonsensical patchwork just to squeeze as illogically high statistics as possible out of every character is not acceptable, and we have already had and concluded the discussion of a split cosmology over and over and over. Please stop interfering.

Superman, in most of his appearances, does not destroy anything more than walls or buildings. Should Superman be demoted to the level of a building?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Superman, in most of his appearances, does not destroy anything more than walls or buildings. Should Superman be demoted to the level of a building?

That's heavy false equivalence. Especially when we're talking about how Cosmology is established which works in tandem with the characters in it. We don't use the heroes to scale the Cosmology itself, we establish the Cosmology to then fit where the characters will be. So scaling the Sphere, for example, is much better than scaling the gods to scale the Sphere.

 

[Brahmatman]

No, they are much above the gods as explained by how gods function on belief and dreams which is being expressed by the Dream King himself, as he personifies said concept.

Are angels gods too?

Except when Cosmology establishes a certain premise not meant to be contradicted. You can't talk about what I said directly and not think about the other stuff to highlights the reason why there's a split.

What is this premise? A different description of something does not make it different in relation to the subsequent author who describes this place

 

[Tiktime]

It is highly relevant. Creating a nonsensical patchwork just to squeeze as illogically high statistics as possible out of every character is not acceptable, and we have already had and concluded the discussion of a split cosmology over and over and over. Please stop interfering.

By the way, if we are talking about Superman and the rules created to say that one-moment feats should not be taken into account (I hope we are talking about it) then it is meaningless as you can not measure that average between each feat, it is literally not a measurable thing, and demoting Superman to a star just because the author said "now he can not play juggler with the planets" is also a very biased position, as these words can be interpreted in different ways, such as the fact that he relative to his opponents and threats is not the same as before

Anyway, the DC Multiverse has any number of dimensions from any third author at all, and even with a split cosmology each cosmology should have from High 1-B to Low 1-A, last time this was rejected without even explaining the reason no matter how many times I asked them (There's even a "spatial dimension" clause.)

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Are angels gods too?

What angels scale to Heaven and Endless other than Michael and Lucifer?

What is this premise? A different description of something does not make it different in relation to the subsequent author who describes this place

If it makes the core of what the author intended, then yes, changing that changes the status quo implemented by the original intent of the author.

 

[Brahmatman]

That's heavy false equivalence. Especially when we're talking about how Cosmology is established which works in tandem with the characters in it. We don't use the heroes to scale the Cosmology itself, we establish the Cosmology to then fit where the characters will be. So scaling the Sphere, for example, is much better than scaling the gods to scale the Sphere.

This is a literal cosmological comparison, where cosmology is given a level for direction from the authors. If the same cosmological construction is indicated by one author as 10D, and by another as 20D, then which one should be used? The gods live in the Sphere, it is very stupid not to scale them. Or is it not necessary to scale five-dimensional inhabitants to 5D? Seriously?

 

[Brahmatman]

What angels scale to Heaven and Endless other than Michael and Lucifer?

You say gods, but angels are not gods at all, what to do with them?

If it makes the core of what the author intended, then yes, changing that changes the status quo implemented by the original intent of the author.

There are many authors, not just one, and even one author can make mistakes in his works, but this will not make his work in some other universe, it is still the same canon

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

You say gods, but angels are not gods at all, what to do with them?

Angels scale to their place of origin like how the gods to theirs. So the Endless is above both classes.

There are many authors, not just one, and even one author can make mistakes in his works, but this will not make his work in some other universe, it is still the same canon

A “mistake” is often rare and is more purposeful than anything. There's also no official “DC Canon.” Stories work or don't work with each other especially if it's made clear within the context and setting of the story.