Especially hard to see for fans of the character who will argue, as has been the case:
"These are alternate visions of Superman, or Superman in another media,
or Superman when he's been brainwashed, or compromised, or, or ..."
Acknowledged. It doesn't affect the main point.
The language of symbols doesn't make such fine distinctions where this subject matter is concerned.
Source: Action Comics #303, Volume 1
Writer: Edmond Hamilton
Penciller: Curt Swan
Date: August 1963
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Action_Comics_Vol_1_303
Supergirl versus Fire Drake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://oi62.tinypic.com/wml9c2.jpg
Source: Adventure Comics #409
Writer: Mike Sekowsky
Penciller: Mike Sekowsky
Date: August 1971
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Adventure_Comics_Vol_1_409
At this point, people should, at the very least, have begun seeing there is symbolism behind lightning and some of its variations.
Serpents, snakes, dragons, beasts, etcetera ...
should be at least a little easier to see now, too.
Now for the fallen angel aspect. Little dragon mixed in here, too ... should be easy to recognize.
To be sure, I'm answering the observation of gaps, systematically covering the Supergirl portion of my title as it relates to the thread theme by progressive eras.
Roughly:
0) Mary Marvel (??? to pre 1959)
1) Silver Age (1959 to early 1970s)
2) Bronze Age (1970s to early 1980s)
3) Modern Age (1990s to early 2000s)
4) Pre-Flashpoint (2004 to 2010)
5) DCnU
Last edited by bluewaterrider on Feb 12th, 2014 at 01:02 PM
There has, arguably, not been any era where the Luciferian and/or Fallen Angelic elements of the Supergirl character were made so pointed and directly stated as this one, present period included.
Note carefully the many symbols included in the 2nd image:
People in sexually suggestive poses, 2-dimensional pyramid, all seeing eye, flames, horned heads or skulls, black leather.
I wasn't a collector of the series during this time; I'm considering the little I read of it and wondering what elements were included in the numerous other books I missed. Not so subtle as your father's Supergirl ...
I've been trying to think of an efficient way to relate the type of symbolism I've been talking about throughout this thread.
It's not that easy to do; the hundreds upon hundreds of views this thread has gotten tells me that people are interested; it hasn't told me if they're understanding what I've been presenting.
On the other hand, I know from doing Respect Threads that even if people like what they see and are following and understanding, they don't always comment and say so.
I feel I've answered Digi's major questions to this point.
Pr will presumably return as he hinted he would at some time in the future.
Iopy? Hmm, well KMC is not a major hang-out spot for her ...
I see from where she DOES hang out, besides, that she's actually beginning to LIKE
the rage-filled blood-vomiting being formerly known as Supergirl presently appearing in DCnU.
It's an honestly fascinating process to observe through Iopy's writing, considering her previous tastes as I knew them and as she expressed them before now.
I suppose the same could be said of most anyone, but it still seems remarkable to me.
Anyway:
I found the following video noteworthily good organization for this type of media and plenty of examples for every major point it made.
I'll probably identify about five points where viewers can click the following clip and follow from that point for about 100 seconds and get a reasonably complete understanding of anything missed to this point.
That'll come later though; I've got important other things to complete this afternoon. Follow up on minor topics like this can wait.
Even so, it's Tuesday, so I'll list this first in complete URL form:
(understanding Luciferianism as it is defined in this thread
and many, if not most, of Luciferianism's major symbols)
I'm still reading, and trying to understand. Don't think a lack of response from me means I'm not lurking.
But as for that blood-vomiting....
It's true that this isn't a major hang-out for me, but that's mostly because I don't necessarily understand things such as the versus threads or the comparison of feats to determine who is a better character. I read comics from a different perspective I guess, and thus don't have anything of merit to contribute. That doesn't mean I don't read those threads, it's always possible I may one day have a blinding flash of understanding, but at my age I suspect that's unlikely.
As for the Red Lanterns direction you may be misreading my views, or more likely I've expressed them poorly. Actually I don't like it, but I do have respect for the writers involved and what they've said they're trying to do. And I have hopes for the denoument of the arc being written, as the concepts expressed by those writers includes this being an attempt at epiphany for the character and a change in direction. In a way I consider it a last gasp therapy and attempt to revive the flagging hopes for a DC property that editorial now may realize they've horribly mis-managed. To me the Red Lantern arc is a bit of nasty medicine that must be swallowed or a fever to burn away the infection.
This version of the character has been written as an angry, hysterical, monstrous child for about 1.5 years, in many ways a collection of every stereotype and cliche about teenage girls that haunts the psyches of some socially challenged young men. As little more than a one dimensional cardboard cut-out character her purpose has been to act as a villain in her own book and a reinforcement for the belief that a young woman is, by her very nature, a lesser being. She's been allowed to fill only the standard hack writer female roles: villain, vixen, or victim. And because of that the book has been a chore to read if you're looking for more than smash-mouth, which is where you'll find me.
In the world of comics there are a few ways to fix that: Reboot, ret-conn, or rehabilitate. In this case they're choosing the latter, and have indicated they plan to tell an arc that follows the traditional hero's journey. And in that journey to reach the necessary realization the character must first achieve a nadir where all seems lost, where the worst aspects of the story have been doubled and redoubled until the loss seems complete. For a character that's been written as an angry hot-head filled with unreasoning rage and self-pity from nearly the beginning of this particular iteration it would seem that a Red Lantern would be the appropriate bit of purgatory where we can have revelation, realization, and finally redemption.
At least that's my hope. What I want in a character such as this one hasn't changed. A redemption arc is the last gasp for the character for me, a way to perhaps bring her back to a point where she can be admirable instead of despicable. And they intend to do it by throwing her down before raising her up. If they succeed I'll tip my hat to them, and I'm rooting for that success because I have always liked the character in the past and would like to be able to like her in the future. But in the end it's not her "feats" that draw me to her unless they're feats of exceptional ethical behavior and moral strength. I don't care if she can or can't beat Goku in a confrontation, I care that she's not Vegeta or Freeza.
Sorry to run on long, that was another of those stream of consciousness text walls you used to see from me a lot. But you did mention it, and my name, so I had to respond. If a rambling diatribe without spellcheck or editing can be considered a response.
Last edited by 55iopy on Mar 6th, 2014 at 06:43 AM
Now, to turn what I've said around to approach the subject of your thread. Or to at least try.
A proper story, argument, speech, or position paper has a theme, a direction, and hopefully a resolution. This thread has spent a great deal of time focusing on symbolism, and I think I see much of it now that you point it out, but we're six pages in and you aren't tying it together or drawing conclusions to be discussed and argued over. I'm by nature a polite person, and I now realize I've been quietly waiting for a summation of your argument. But you don't appear on the surface to be making one. You've presented a series of observations, but haven't stated what the proposition is that you're supporting with them, so the most I can do is nod or shake my head. I can't discuss them in a way that is meaningful or that can engender further discussion.
In essence, I see a collected series of statements that seem to be moving toward establishing a proposition, but I don't really understand what the proposition is. Can you help this poor, dense person?
In the meantime I'll touch a point that you hit on briefly, that being the "Luciferian" motif found in various iterations of Supergirl. You've presented a series of scenes via links to scans, and each has those somewhat demonic references. But in each case, while you touch on the that aspect of he story, you don't also reference the story being told. The story of Lucifer is one of a fall, but not one that includes redemption. The story of the Matrix/Linda Supergirl as written by Peter David includes damnation and redemption as motifs. It even includes the basic concept of the guardian angel as described in Hebrews 1:14: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?" And oddly enough, this remarkably spiritual work hints that the angel sent to guide the Linda/Matrix character is the spirit of the Silver Age Supergirl who sacrificed and was forgotten. And in the end the Matrix portion of the merged being makes that same ultimate sacrifice, and like Silver Age Supergirl is forgotten due to another DC universe reshuffle.
So. Luciferian? Perhaps. But only if we also assume that even Lucifer is not beyond redemption. A fall is there, much like I mentioned for the current rage filled Red Lantern Supergirl. But salvation as well, even if not in a strictly biblical sense. And guidance, when needed, by kindred spirits.
Should I continue to talk? Or have I gone so far off the track you intended that I'm derailing your intent?
2. It's highly unlikely you'll derail the intent of my thread unless you're trying.
My threads are, generally, designed to incorporate audience questions, participation, and objections,
though that fact isn't always obvious to most.
I suspect I've actually let that become TOO much the case over the years and need to get back to the way I originally used to post on forums.
3. You don't live in Michigan, do you?
Something about your writing pattern seems incredibly familiar ...
You actually are and have.
I'll do my best to demonstrate as much in subsequent updates.
That's pretty much the integral theme of this thread; it's as reassuring to see this statement from you as it would have been disconcerting to see the opposite.
You've got me interested now as to what remains confusing or what you think needs further explanation, though.
Feel free to KMC personal message me if you don't think I'm properly understanding you here.
Iopy your response tells me that my approach, boggled in organization, nonetheless has been able to communicate some of the things
I've been trying to get across.
Hopefully, assuming I'll have time to devote to it this afternoon,
the bulk of what I've said before will make sense, communicated about as clearly through illustration as symbolism allows.
In the meantime, a preview of the "twinning" theme I plan to explore later on today, an important key to understanding a good portion of the things shown thus far:
Stream of consciousness might be the best way to get past any writing difficulties at this point. I've been viewing works similar to this thread and considering the responses this one itself has gotten. Greatest failing of many of the others seems to be a lack of exemplary material.
I'm far slower at content providing than the average KMC image poster.
So it would probably be best just to focus on finishing the presentation of my original set of material and forget about organization and full coherency until the visual portion has been set down here.
The Subtlety of Homage and Symbolism.
http://oi62.tinypic.com/fau9lw.jpg
Black Costume Spidey.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2pzen49.jpg
Deadpool swinging with Jonah Jameson lookalike ... on now frayed line.
Why these entries?
Need to illustrate the principle that storylines and specific contents matter to a more limited extent than people realize where communication via symbols is concerned.
Also that symbols are generally not something overt enough for all people to understand, nor, in many cases, are they intended to.
To a new comic reader, for instance, the above 2 entries are just 2 random entries. They wouldn't know who Deadpool is, they wouldn't know who J. Jonah Jameson is. They would only be able to tell Spider-Man is Spider-man in the first entry because the title said so; they would wonder why in the world he's in some black costume, when, if they've EVER seen him before, it was probably in something red and blue.
By contrast, a fan who actually collects Spider-man to an appreciable degree will recognize, and instantly, that the 2 entries above are not random and meaningless at all. They are actually homages or parodies of Amazing Fantasy #15, the magazine that started the entire Spider-Man industry as we know it today, way back in the 1960s.
New reader/initiate: no clue.
Reader with prior exposure: instant, visceral, resonant recognition.
Any reader trying to follow this thread MUST understand this concept, that the things I'm trying to describe are rarely if ever being displayed blatantly enough
for all people to recognize them.
Not without some ability to correct for the distortion inherent in trying to interpret symbolic language, at least.
Symbolism wouldn't be symbolism if it were spelled out like a legal document.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2pzen49.jpg
Deadpool swinging with Jonah Jameson lookalike ... on now frayed line.
-------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in the post before this present post that you're reading, the above are homages to Amazing Fantasy #15,
and illustrations of the minimal degree of interpretive ability you need to possess to understand anything in this thread.
Well, that's the case so far.
It occurs to me, not just now and not for the first time, that I can correct for some otherwise misses by creating composite scans.
Of homage or homages side-by-side with the original.
So people can see at a glance where these things are derived from the very first time around.
The variant included as my attachment in my previous post is still the best homage, as far as I'm concerned, but it's nice to have these to illustrate the point.
Note how different each homage is from the original when you visit that site.
Notice how it is nonetheless recognizable, almost unmistakeably so.
Besides being yet another reinforcement of how variation must be factored in to any understanding of this subject matter, the scene depicted on the Action Comics 252 echoes a theme all its own. Another motif, just like the "I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven" meme you all should be learning to recognize from my entries on the previous page. Rebirth.
The Action 252 cover depicts symbolic death and rebirth.
Kara "dies" in a dramatic crash, in the Supergirl #58 homage even a fiery one,
to emerge, Phoenix-like, powerful and reborn, from a structure that vaguely resembles an egg.
I'm reminded of similar memes at work in Lady Gaga and Beyonce performances. But I (vaguely) digress.
Actually, that line of thinking triggers more.
For instance, I like the Loeb variant homage because it actually summarizes the entire first arc of his series.
None of the others communicate that much with so little as far as I can tell; it's absolutely brilliant.
But I'm reminded of it because I recall now someone pointing out that Superman symbolically undergoes a symbolic drowning death in the new Man of Steel movie.
I've got that featured on the first page of this thread, if memory serves. A "burial" where Superman is even shown Christ-like in clothes echoing familiar painted depictions of the cross, following that oil-rig explosion:
In similar, though not nearly so allegorically a fashion, Kara emerges from what is otherwise a watery grave, with a messenger from above shining light down on her, no less. The material lends itself well to that interpretation, at any rate.
Errant click of the mouse submitted that without images.
No matter.
I was up to the Loeb Kelly era.
Won't dwell overmuch on this one.
This is the era of Dark Kara/Supergirl introduced by Jeph Loeb.
In contrast to the original Kara Zor-el, who was greeted and mentored and patterned after the relatively light and sunny character of Superman,
Loeb's Kara Zor-el was met first by Batman and adopted HIM as her primary parental figure and mentor.
This was actually pretty fascinating in some aspects.
Separate from the subject matter of this thread, I rather liked the idea.
Anyway, I'm impatient to begin with Wonder Woman tonight/today.
I'll only post 2 scans for now from this era that should nevertheless suggest quite a bit to viewers who've been paying attention to this point, and move on:
http://oi58.tinypic.com/70ypuq.jpg
Allusion intensified.
Satangirl even from her earliest days,
Fallen Angel under Peter David,
Destroying Angel or Angel of Death under Joe Kelly,
but now, barely disguised,
not only Kara the Worldkiller,
but Kara Zor-el literal Angel of H'el.
Always there.
Always Luciferian.
In fact, now so intense that the saga
IS beginning to feature visuals that ARE associated with Satanism as most people think of the term.
Time to begin the exploration or re-exploration of the symbolism surrounding Wonder Woman.
Coming to mind immediately:
Apollyon (Apollo) the Destroyer.
Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies
Daughter of Zeus
Diana by other names
Artemis
Sun and Moon
Twin motif
Hera and Siracca
Ares, God of War
Mirror Dragon
Pentagram, Eastern Star, Baphomet
Demiurge versus Yaldabaoth versus Apollo
Superwoman
Sizeable list. I'm not of the mind more than a third of the items above are actually familiar to most people.
Many notes are in order. First, said before, but worth repeating, is that nothing in this thread will make much sense without some basic knowledge of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
From the perspective of any of these monotheistic religions, all fairly common in America, Greek "deities" are not deities at all. Greek gods are not truly gods.
They are, instead, regarded as fallen angels or demons.
Agents either associated with Satan, or agents who are actually disguised Satan himself. Lucifer.
It is unfortunately not Tuesday so I will have to be exceedingly brief; it is actually bedtime where I live.
Note that, depending on how current or non-current you like your source material, you may want to delay your examination of the following links, which is quite recent indeed.
The entry is included here nonetheless because it is fairly remarkable, first of these three offerings especially, for illustrating several of the concepts discussed in these and earlier pages.
See if you can identify at least 2 or 3 or those illustrated concepts.
There just might be a quiz later on ...
KMC Community Forums
Feb 12th, 2014 02:52 AM
Attachment: 
Official pimp of Steverules 
