The Source’s depiction in DotNG as an orb only contradicts Morrisons cosmology if we hold some author statement by Grant above the boatload of material which contradicts what Grant said. And as far as I’m aware, what was said by Grant in an interview doesn’t matter not only according to your own statements, but also to this site which has a whole page dedicated to establishing that we do not accept author statements which contradict the material.
You literally referenced Grant's statement of the final battle being apocryphal which comes from the same interview. Regardless, the map lists them as the same thing.
It’s because I disagree with certain interpretations him and a couple others have about DC. Ant has tried to get me topic banned multiple times, all of which failed due to multiple staff disagreement. So his last resort was to essentially forbid other staff from allowing specifically me to comment on that DC revision thread.
I apologize for my rudeness and inconvenience
The Source statements come from IGN, the DotNG statements come from Newsarama. I digress, we already went over that Grant calling Darkseids final battle with Orion apocryphal has nothing to do with The Source.
It does, definitively. If you want to claim that's contradictory, fine, but Grant's map absolutely lists them as the same thing. He also clarifies his intent for this being the case in numerous interviews, and it was made blatantly clear in his draft map
In Countdown the Monitors were born from seed programming that activated when Alex Luthor tampered with Anti-Monitor's body. In Final Crisis the Monitors were angels made by the Overvoid to interface with the multiverse. In Justice League they were fragments of Mar Novu, the original Monitor. In Dark Crisis they were made by the Presence.
No it doesn’t. The official map simply just list them as existing beyond the Source Wall. Whether they’re the same or not is never specified on the official map itself. Also once again, Grants interview contradictory interview statements don’t matter according to you and VSBW. The map sketch is also irrelevant as it’s just a rough draft for something that was WIP and the words “the Source is the white page” was never written onto the official one.
Why would we go with your contradictory interpretation of the map over other interpretations which align with all the evidence and don’t cause any contradiction?
Yes, it is. Every single label on the map hovers directly over or next to what it is referring to. The only thing "The Source" could refer to on the map is the white space.
It isn't an interpretation. That's what the map says. The Source is the white page. If you're still confused, we can just ask Grant.
Not true at all. Author statements can be used for clarifying what's on the page.
Bad argument. Destiny is also on the white space outside the Multiverse but he’s not the white space itself.
The official and finalized version of the map never says verbatim “The Source is the white page.”
Grants author statements don’t matter according to you. And if they contradict the material they don’t matter according to Vsbattles wiki.
None of the stories I referenced predate the Overvoid, as the Overvoid has been a thing since Doom Patrol. It was just never called “Monitor Mind the Overvoid” until Final Crisis. However it very much still existed.
Is the name "Destiny" written on the white space with letters? No. Don't strawman my argument. This isn't about drawings, this is about how the map is labeled.
Not true at all. Author statements can be used for clarifying what's on the page. This is VSBW policy as well.
No, it didn't, and this is exactly what I mean by "post-hoc rationalization." You take some scan from 1989 out of context because it has the phrase "perfect nothingness" and claim "this has to be the same thing as Monitor-Mind the Overvoid from 2009!" and expect that to be taken seriously. As if your opinion that this scan refers to a character that wasn't introduced until two decades afterwards is somehow noteworthy.
Ok and? A label can come in the form of a drawing as well. Why can’t the Source having it’s name labeled out on the white space just mean that it exists out there on the white space similar to Destiny?
Sure they can be used for clarifying what has been already been shown, however if they contradict the material then they can’t be used. In your case, these statements from Grant are not further clarifying what’s already shown in the material, they’re contradicting it.
The Overvoid represents the Void of perfect nothingness that the universe was created in. Unless you think the Overvoid isn’t the perfect nothingness then arguing about whether this is referring to the Overvoid or not is moot.
You're comparing two completely different things. I don't care about drawings. The names on the map are overt and clear. The white space is the Source according to the map.
No, they're not. The map alone makes this obvious.
The Overvoid has not been called "perfect nothingness" ever.
Saying “I don’t care” is not an argument. So I will ask you again, why can’t the Source having it’s name labeled out on the white space just mean that it exists out there on the white space similar to Destiny?
As I’ve already listed, DotNG, Countdown, Final Crisis, JLA, Action Comics, Multiversity, etc, all contradict Grants statements about The Source and the Overvoid being the same. Meaning by Vsbattles wiki standards the statement will be disregarded.
Lol you actually doubled down. The Overvoid has been shown to represent the void of immaculate perfection that reality exists inside of on multiple occasions. Meaning the idea which the Overvoid represents does indeed go back to Doom Patrol.
The rest of my comment already addressed this.
No, they don't. None of them mention the Overvoid, it hadn't existed yet.
None of your scans describe the Overvoid as "perfect nothingness."
The rest of your comment does not address my point. There’s nothing that says the everything labeled on the white space has to be the white space. If that was the case, then Destiny would also be the Overvoid.
Whether they specifically use the word “Overvoid” or say verbatim “perfect nothingness” is irrelevant to my argument. In Final Crisis, reality is treated as a flaw inside an immaculate perfection and Void. Which aligns with the Doom Patrol scan that talks about how reality was a stain created in perfect nothingness. Meaning the idea which the Overvoid represented already existed in DC’s cosmology since Doom Patrol.
Nothing on the map labels the white space "Destiny." The white space has two labels, "The Source" and "The Overvoid." Every other label on the map names the location the label is on. You've provided no reason to make a special exception for the Source aside from your personal desire for that to not be true.
Your theory that these are the same things is simply that. A theory.
Yes I have. Destiny being drawn up there, plus the entire boatload of problems and contradictions that would come from trying to interpret the Source and the Overvoid as the same entity.
It’s not a theory. The Overvoid literally represents the immaculate perfection and void/nothingness that reality was created inside of. Literally everyone knows this except for you.
I wish it was this simple.
Destiny's drawing has literally no bearing on the naming format of the map, and you disliking it means nothing. It's what the map says.
You putting slashes between different words doesn't make them identical. "Immaculate perfection" and "perfect nothingness" don't mean the same thing just because you want them to.
When did I say that I “dislike it”? I said there was a boatload of problems and contradictions that would come with asserting the Source as the Overvoid. Some of which I already listed.
I said perfection = perfect and Void = nothingness. Also lol at the idea that the universe was like a stain created in two different perfect voids in DC’s cosmology. Do you honestly see how ridiculous you sound right now?
Take it up with Grant Morrison. He's the one that made it canon. If the blue orb is Nil, the white page is the Source.
You just spent the past few days arguing that a drawing of Destiny should be considered the same in principle as the 20+ written names all over the map.
Yes
The white space is clearly an exception to the rest of the map, as the the Source and the Overvoid being the same entity doesn’t align with the rest of the evidence presented throughout the material within Morrison’s cosmology.
Once again it’s not because the scan just says “perfect nothingness” it’s because the scan is talking about the idea that reality was created like a flaw in a perfect void. And the Overvoid represents the perfect void/nothingness reality was created in. Meaning what the Overvoid represents already existed.
You are manufacturing an ad-hoc exception to the map because what the map actually says is inconvenient to your argument. It is meaningless, even if your claim was true, there's nothing preventing Grant from retconning what an earlier book said. Grant made his intentions clear, and the map demonstrates his intention. The Source is the Overvoid, both are the white space beyond the Source Wall.
In the very best case scenario, where all of your assumptions are accepted, all this would actually mean is that something with a single similar characteristic was described 20 years prior, that was lacking several other important characteristics. Two things across 20 years that have a single thing in common do not make them the same thing.
You realize most of the stories I listed were not earlier books right? Most of the stories I listed come from the events Final Crisis, Multiversity, or some time later.
For the 10th time, I’m not arguing about the sharing of characteristics. I don’t know why you’re so adamant on trying to misrepresent what I’m saying. What I’m arguing is that since the idea of there being a perfect nothingness/void which reality was created like a stain inside of existed during the time of Doom Patrol, and the Overvoid represents this idea, that would mean the Overvoid existed since Doom Patrol.
In what way does the Source being the Overvoid contradict Final Crisis, Multiversity, or later books?
You literally are. Your basis for claiming the "perfect nothingness" refers to a character that didn't exist at the time is that the description allegedly overlaps with some of Overvoids characteristics, if we ignore that the descriptions are different and only share surface level commonalities.
In many ways. During Final Crisis and Multiversity The Overvoid was established to not have made creation, and to not have understood what it was, which contradicts it being the Source as a core essential part of the Source’s character is that it took part in making creation and understands what it is.
I’ve literally said on multiple occasions throughout this thread that my argument was not because the scan just says perfect nothingness.
The Source is not described like that in Final Crisis or Multiversity. So no, your alleged contradictions are based on saying Grant's retcon of the Source is a retcon, which means nothing. We know he retconned older works.
Yes, Countdown and DotNG are apocryphal in many respects. This is not an argument against the map. Grant contradicted the majority of those storylines completely.
Your argument is to equate unlike terms based on surface level similarities, and suggest that these similarities must represent an identical character. A stain is not a flaw. And even if Grant wrote something that resembled some small details about the Overvoid, that doesn't mean it was the Overvoid, the same way writing about a flying guy in a cape isn't necessarily Superman, because Superman is also Kryptonian, named Clark Kent, et cetera.
All of DotNG and Countdown which are Final Crisis tie ins depict The Source as knowing what creation is and having taken part in making it. Even in the Final Crisis interview statements you used, Morrison equates the Overvoid with “Kirby’s Source.”
Grant only called the final fight between Darkseid and Orion apocryphal.
I’ve literally said on multiple occasions throughout this thread that my argument was not because the scan just says perfect nothingness.
