I was just rereading the most recent Lucifer series, and it occurred to me that Lucifer and the GEB were implied to be the same entity:
https://ibb.co/18B0D6j
Lucifer: "Without perversion, all is unified. All is one in nothingness. Have you ever considered that perhaps that's why he made me the way I am? He needed shadow to give his light definition. Without elements of each other, perfect light and perfect darkness are one and the same."
Moreover, when some of Lucifer's avatars were depicted alongside him, we see the GEB's hand present:
https://ibb.co/Rvg5CCV
Dan Watters(writer of the series) confirms that the hand was indeed meant to represent the GEB:
https://ibb.co/8gjrw0v
So at least in Watters' view, the GEB is just one of Lucifer's many avatars/personifications. Granted, I'm sure DC has retconned this little factoid in current continuity, but I still thought it was interesting...
Originally posted by Galan007what did he mean by if he fell he couldn't come back?
I was just rereading the most recent Lucifer series, and it occurred to me that Lucifer and the GEB were implied to be the same entity:
https://ibb.co/18B0D6j
Lucifer: "Without perversion, all is unified. All is one in nothingness. Have you ever considered that perhaps that's why he made me the way I am? He needed shadow to give his light definition. Without elements of each other, perfect light and perfect darkness are one and the same."Moreover, when some of Lucifer's avatars were depicted alongside him, we see the GEB's hand present:
https://ibb.co/Rvg5CCVDan Watters(writer of the series) confirms that the hand was indeed meant to represent the GEB:
https://ibb.co/8gjrw0vSo at least in Watters' view, the GEB is just one of Lucifer's many avatars/personifications. Granted, I'm sure DC has retconned this little factoid in current continuity, but I still thought it was interesting...
Originally posted by Galan007
I was just rereading the most recent Lucifer series, and it occurred to me that Lucifer and the GEB were implied to be the same entity:
https://ibb.co/18B0D6j
Lucifer: "Without perversion, all is unified. All is one in nothingness. Have you ever considered that perhaps that's why he made me the way I am? He needed shadow to give his light definition. Without elements of each other, perfect light and perfect darkness are one and the same."Moreover, when some of Lucifer's avatars were depicted alongside him, we see the GEB's hand present:
https://ibb.co/Rvg5CCVDan Watters(writer of the series) confirms that the hand was indeed meant to represent the GEB:
https://ibb.co/8gjrw0vSo at least in Watters' view, the GEB is just one of Lucifer's many avatars/personifications. Granted, I'm sure DC has retconned this little factoid in current continuity, but I still thought it was interesting...
I be surprised if this v3 is even canon to veritgo, let alone dc at this point
my guess is the main dc writers that's writing their crappy dark crisis with geb stories, didn't even bother to read lucifer v3. and have no plan to include lucifer in main dc continuity anytime soon, god I really hope just once I get proven wrong on this
Originally posted by Astner
John Stewart absorbed the Godstorm. This means it's a contingent event (i.e. it's possible but not necessary). If we assume that the Omniverse is maximally complete then all contingent events should've occurred an infinite number of times. But since it's only ever happened once, the Omniverse can't be maximally complete. That is to say: there are possible state of affairs that could've existed in the Omniverse but that don't.The Source's lack of omniscience comes down to him asking John "What are you doing here?" Implying that he doesn't know the answer. Generally, it's a good idea to have omniscient beings monologue rather than dialogue.
interesting take, the writer probably didn't think this far like you did. 👆
and yeah for a supreme being to ask "what are you doing here" is lame and stupid, but I geniunely think that's writer's mistake at this point. omniverse in comics or fictions in general mean infinite numbers of multiverse/megaverse (infinite dimensions and realms included), and that's it. the omniverse of a comic company, in meta sense, just means anything that's published from that company is existing in this "omniverse"
he wanted the source to appear impressive as hell that's why he showed him up in kirby's avatar. we will see what's up tomorrow
Originally posted by Sin I AMHe was talking about fully immersing himself in the void(the absolute nothingness that exists apart from God's creation.) However, he did immerse himself in the void not long after that, and came back from it without much effort.
what did he mean by if he fell he couldn't come back?
Originally posted by MrMind
interesting take, the writer probably didn't think this far like you did.
Originally posted by MrMind
omniverse in comics or fictions in general mean infinite numbers of multiverse/megaverse (infinite dimensions and realms included), and that's it.
I recognize why it's done (to emphasize the significance of what John did) but it's at the cost of the complexity of the cosmology.
Originally posted by MrMind
he wanted the source to appear impressive as hell that's why he showed him up in kirby's avatar. we will see what's up tomorrow
Originally posted by Galan007
I was just rereading the most recent Lucifer series, and it occurred to me that Lucifer and the GEB were implied to be the same entity:
https://ibb.co/18B0D6j
Lucifer: "Without perversion, all is unified. All is one in nothingness. Have you ever considered that perhaps that's why he made me the way I am? He needed shadow to give his light definition. Without elements of each other, perfect light and perfect darkness are one and the same."Moreover, when some of Lucifer's avatars were depicted alongside him, we see the GEB's hand present:
https://ibb.co/Rvg5CCVDan Watters(writer of the series) confirms that the hand was indeed meant to represent the GEB:
https://ibb.co/8gjrw0vSo at least in Watters' view, the GEB is just one of Lucifer's many avatars/personifications. Granted, I'm sure DC has retconned this little factoid in current continuity, but I still thought it was interesting...
Originally posted by Astner
Because **** Alan Moore and his introduction of the Great Darkness where he specifically points out that it's not a fallen angel.And **** Neil Gaiman's original introduction of Lucifer where he refers to the Great Darkness as a separate entity and the catalyst of the events that lead up to the current state of affairs.
Is it too much to expect a new writer to at the very least have read up on the first appearances of the characters he's writing about?
Originally posted by Astner
Probably. You have to be careful when you introduce concepts like these because it's very easy to contradict yourself through implication.Yes, but I think it's a mistake to arbitrarily restrict it not to include every possibility.
I recognize why it's done (to emphasize the significance of what John did) but it's at the cost of the complexity of the cosmology.
What issue is it?
not only that, if you get too metaphysicy and mathematicy, you lose the interest of the average comic reader.
the average comic reader for current comic landscape is way dumber than you think. the educated people on kmc (the galan and the phil if you will) are not your average comic readers, they are sometimes better than the actual editors and writers who are currently working in the industry
the cosmology is already done, it's one of the most complex fictor out there. trust me, I read a lot of shit, only chinese xianxia novels match dc cosmology. even lovecraft mytho does not have the layers of lores told like dc did. it's just dc cosmology is so broad and complex it's impossible for any writer to fit it coherently into one storylines. that's why writers are coming up with their own shit which makes the already complexed cosmology more messy and the nerds trying to make it fit together simply using their own imagination to connect the dots, of course it's not gonna be on point, after all it's fiction. what's canon or not in the end of the day doesn't matter as much as we think. we as men just have a need to want shit to make sense.
it's green lantern 12 I think, the only thing throwing me off to read the story is actually the art.
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
So does this imply Hypertime is an omniversal concept?
this is a very interesting take on DC as a whole, because we can infinitely expand that diagram and it makes sense
I need galan's take on this
Originally posted by Astner
I don't like how they keep dragging old lore that was complete out of the woodwork.
Alan Moore doesn't need retconning. Just like Watchmen didn't. It's like DC wants to erase his original work from existance out of spite.
How does current Lucifer mesh with what Michael Carey did? Is Vertigo treated as a separate thing, or did it happen?
Originally posted by MrMind
not only that, if you get too metaphysicy and mathematicy, you lose the interest of the average comic reader.
If a writer wants to explore a philosophical question in a story, then he can do so concisely. This was done at the end of Watchmen. Alan Moore took utilitarianism, gave us a lurid example of it, and then asked us "is this right?" No bloated exposition involving the names of renowned philosophers or anything like that...just an example that we could all understand.
From the way the story had been told it's clear that Alan Moore had a good grasp of the subject he was tackling. He had read about it and he had thought about it. This is also why he didn't make any stupid mistakes when telling the story.
Originally posted by MrMind
the cosmology is already done, it's one of the most complex fictor out there. trust me, I read a lot of shit, only chinese xianxia novels match dc cosmology. even lovecraft mytho does not have the layers of lores told like dc did. it's just dc cosmology is so broad and complex it's impossible for any writer to fit it coherently into one storylines. that's why writers are coming up with their own shit which makes the already complexed cosmology more messy and the nerds trying to make it fit together simply using their own imagination to connect the dots, of course it's not gonna be on point, after all it's fiction. what's canon or not in the end of the day doesn't matter as much as we think. we as men just have a need to want shit to make sense.
Wuxia and Xianxia is just about a hero's journey into legend or godhood. It doesn't really have a focus on the cosmology. I'm not too familiar with these stories, since I've just watched a couple of donghua of the genres. But I'm not really getting the impression that they're written to promote some super-cosmology.
As for DC's cosmology...it seems to be revised every few issues, and whatever complexity arises is cut down. Just look at qwertyuiop1998's scan. Is the metaverse just the main universe now?
Originally posted by AstnerWuxia and Xianxia is just about a hero's journey into legend or godhood. It doesn't really have a focus on the cosmology. I'm not too familiar with these stories, since I've just watched a couple of donghua of the genres. But I'm not really getting the impression that they're written to promote some super-cosmology.
The super-cosmology are often Xianxia novels, which are different from donghua
Because the writers of this genre only need to write their novels on the internet, It could be message boards, it could be some more formal websites etc....
Basically, they like fanfiction. You don't necessarily need much money or energy to construct them, thus some battle board posters are also capable of writing them......
Just imagine if Mr.Master were writing Marvel in past few years....or Carver were writing Hulk
I think this beats out every flash Rogue combined. 😱 🤣🤣
Originally posted by AstnerThe Source actually says “also, what you’re doing here?”The Source's lack of omniscience comes down to him asking John "What are you doing here?" Implying that he doesn't know the answer. Generally, it's a good idea to have omniscient beings monologue rather than dialogue.
So either the source has a shit grasp of grammar or it’s deliberately (and awkwardly) phrased as another rhetorical question that the source is about to answer.
