[This is a short excerpt from my longer article on Gaiman that will appear in Gale/Cengage's British Writers Series XXIII next year: what follows is a brief reading of two comics from the series, which I hope will inspire people who haven't read them to pick them up!]
Critics often ask—with all
seriousness—why comics writers would write a comic instead of a traditional
story or novel. Typically they see comics as a juvenile form of literature, or
at best a way station for writers trying to break into more serious work.
Gaiman, however, has always embraced the possibilities of what Will Eisner
termed “sequential art,” and never distanced himself from the comics community
that spawned his greatest success. Partly this is because for him, comics were “virgin
territory.” As he goes on to explain, “When I’m writing novels I’m
painfully aware that I’m working in a medium that people have been writing absolutely
jaw-droppingly brilliant things for, you know, three-four thousand years now...But
with comics I felt like—I can do stuff nobody has ever done. I can do stuff
nobody has ever thought of.” (Ogline, Wild River Review). One of the things he can do that
“nobody has ever thought of” is the sheer range of associations possible in a
literary comic book. While a story or novel can allude to this or that work, a
comic book can literally have several stories/characters existing
simultaneously in a single frame, even in distinct worlds/times/ universes. As
Harlan Ellison, the famous science fiction writer, remarked about Sandman,
“I remember finishing issues of Sandman and just sitting there trying to
catch my breath, saying “What a ride this guy has taken me on. And I’d add,
“how brilliantly clever.” I’m a fairly clever guy, and I knew that I was
catching maybe a third of the cultural references in each issue that
Neil would just casually drop in” (Bender xiii).
The Sandman series
encompassed 75 individual comics, spanning from 1988 to 1996, along with
several individual short stories and special issues. The basic story follows
the ancient character of the Sandman, one of the Endless, a family of god-like
creatures including Death, Desire, Despair, Destruction, etc. Dream’s role is
to control “The Dreaming,” the very landscape of dreams that maintains our
psychic personalities. This allows him to travel from one story to another,
rarely being the main attraction, but always working carefully behind the
scenes in ways that often take several issues—or even several years—to bear
fruit. The cast of characters is immense, including historical/literary
characters such as Shakespeare, Chaucer, Marlowe, and Marco Polo, as well as
creatures from myth, fantasy, and popular culture (even John Belushi makes an
appearance). The series introduces us to Dream through the following mishap: in
1916, an English magician, Roderick Burgess, concocts a spell to ensnare Death,
only to catch Dream, her younger brother. Dream (or Sandman) is stripped naked
and encased in a glass case to hear the sorcerer’s demands. Instead, Dream
defiantly ignores him, and remains in his prison for 72 years, escaping only
when the magician’s son accidentally erases part of the magic circle enclosing
the case. His first quest is to set the Dreaming back in order, which has
suffered terribly in his absence. To do so, he has to join forces with Lucifer
himself to win back the instruments of his office: his helmet, pouch, and ruby.
While exploring each issue
and series of Sandman would require the better part of a book, focusing
on two distinct issues can suggest the sheer range of the work: The Doll’s
House 4, “Men of Good Fortune” and Seasons of Mists 2. These works
showcase the extraordinary range of the series, as one demonstrates Gaiman’s
delight in historical narratives and playful humor, while the other reveals the
darker, philosophical undercurrents of the entire series. In “Men of Good
Fortune,” Dream arrives with Death at an inn in 14th century England , surrounded by the banter of farmers, merchants,
and poets. Death encourages Dream to listen to these conversations, and he
quickly picks out a gentleman who is railing against Death: “It’s Rubbish,
Death...I mean, what’s it good for, eh? Think about it” (3). Dream is
intrigued, and asks the man if he will meet him in the same tavern a hundred
years hence. The man, one Hob Gadling, carelessly agrees and thinks nothing
more of it. The story follows their meetings in 1488, 1588, 1688, 1788, 1888,
and finally 1988, as Dream follows his progress through high and low fortunes,
checking his optimism at every turn. Will Hob finally renounce his life and beg
for the embrace of Death? Or will he ultimately discover the true meaning of
life, once the exclusive property of the Endless?
From this synopsis several
important themes dance out, chief among them the meaning of an individual life.
If we could simply live beyond the span of six, seven, or eight decades, would
it be long enough to collect our winnings? Hob believes that death is the ultimate
card sharp, cheating people before they learn the rules, so he simply refuses
to play. Once Dream returns in 1488, Hob realizes that he might be playing a
“game” after all. However, he soon reveals that one hundred years doesn’t teach
one much of anything; rather, he has lived more or less the same life as before,
drifting from war to war as a hired mercenary. He is delighted with the small
innovations of life: playing cards, handkerchiefs, and chimneys, but hasn’t
been at the forefront of these advances. Ironically, a hundred years earlier he
was sitting in the same inn as Geoffrey Chaucer, who spoke of his interest in
writing “tavern tales told of an evening” (2). Now that Hob has taken up a
partnership in the printing press, some of his first works will be those of
Chaucer, though he will not understand the worth of this “fad” to posterity—or
his pocketbook. Only in 1588 does he
begin to see the big picture, as his profits have thrust him into a new class
with a new name to boot: Sir Robert Gadlen. Yet his ignorance shines through as
he tells Dream, “The Gods have smiled on me, as they smile on all England , where no man is slave or bondsman” (10). The
irony of this statement will be lost on Sir Robert when, in 1788, he hoards his
riches from the Transatlantic slave trade.
However, as he goes on
about his riches and new-found importance, the reader is more interested in a
conversation going on just behind them: Shakespeare and Marlowe are discussing
the former’s dreadful first play, Henry VI, Part 1, which Marlowe claims
“should be his last” (11). Shakespeare laments that he can write nothing as
deathless as Marlowe’s lines, and that he would be willing to offer up his very
soul to do so. Not surprisingly, Death is all ears, and asks Sir Robert who he
is. The self-satisfied gentleman dismisses him with the remark, “Acts a bit.
Wrote a play...He’s crap” (12). Death sees something more in young “William
Shaxberd” and leaves the inn with him; only three frames remain of 1588, three
portraits of the man mistakes luck for wisdom and has forgotten how to gamble
(unlike Will). As he scarfs down food, we get a final scene of him raising his
glass with the pronouncement, “Everything to live for. And nowhere to go but
up” (13). The magnificent coloring of this issue offers a stark contrast from
the pastoral blues and greens of Elizabethan England to the shadowy purples of
the Restoration: vice has invaded the land, and our resident gentleman has been
reduced to penury, unable even to enter his timeless inn. As he confides to
Dream, “I’ve hated every second of the last eighty years. Every bloody second.
You know that?” (16). Sympathetically—or perhaps inquisitively—Dream offers him
the respite of death, which he abruptly turns aside. No, death is a “mug’s
game” and he insists he has “so much to live for” (16).
Yet this endless optimism
is questioned in 1788—not surprisingly, only a few decades after the
publication of Voltaire’s Candide, which skewered philosophical
optimism—when Sir Robert, who has become rich from the slave trade, remarks,
“like I said, it’s a living” (17). After four hundred years, and with the
knowledge of his immorality, Sir Robert is still living day-to-day, trying to
“make a living” rather than changing the world. He has no plan, no dreams, no
ambitions. Indeed, for the first time in their relationship, Sir Robert
realizes he doesn’t know a thing about Dream, not even his name. Only in 1888
does he finally start looking around, realizing that he’s not the only one
evading death or immune from its promise. The one thing he lacks in life is
companionship, as his friends inevitably die and are forgotten (he can’t even
remember his once-beloved wife’s face). Only Dream remains, and it dawns on him
that Dream, himself, desired a companion to share gossip with, perhaps the true
nature of their game. Naturally Dream denies having such human frailties, but
when he returns in 1988, he greets Robert as a friend. So what does a man learn in a life, or in
several lives? Does he learn to “win”? Or simply to hedge his bets? Is there
anything to find in a thousand lives that is denied in a single lifetime? As
Death tells him in 1788, “The Great Stories will always return to their
original forms” (18). In other words, a hundred lives will end the same as the
first and tell the same stories. Yet even a single life has the ability to
surprise us, as Dream has learned of his own humanity in 1988, a fact he had
stubbornly denied for a billion years.
If life is the subject of “Men
of Good Fortune,” the second part of “Season of Mists” is death—or more
specifically, hell itself. Dream journeys to Lucifer’s realm to rescue his
beloved, Nada, from her eternal torments. However, when he arrives he finds
Hell abandoned, the front gates open, and not a damned soul in sight. The
artwork in this issue is particularly extraordinary, as the fortress of Hell
resembles a nightmare vision from H.R. Giger’s imagination. Yet the colors are surprisingly
lush and beautiful, as if to suggest the pleasures that tempt one to this infernal
domain. Visually, the work plays with space quite a bit, with moments that
break out of the frame, suggesting an endless, timeless world. When Lucifer
finally appears—a man with a curiously soap-opera appearance, despite his
wings—he tells Dream he is closing up shop. No more hell, no more torments. He
asks Dream to follow him along as he banishes the last stragglers from his
realm, a task made difficult because of Hell’s staggering size. When asked how
large, Lucifer merely replies, “even I couldn’t say for certain exactly how
vast. It’s almost a meaningless question” (10). Indeed, as we soon learn, the sheer
capacity for human beings to suffer and create suffering for others is endless
and uncharted.
The first stop is to a
sinner chained savagely to a rock by a thousand barbs, each one stretching his
skin to the breaking point. Despite being allowed to leave, he refuses,
exclaiming “You...do...not understand. I am Breschau...Breschau of Livonia . I ripped out the tongues of those who spoke
against me, and cut the unborn babes from the wombs of my enemies’ women” (11).
Lucifer is unmoved and unimpressed, dismissing him since his victims no longer
exist and the world has forgotten his crimes. “Haven’t you tortured yourself
enough?” Lucifer asks him. The question wounds Breschau, who with tears in his
eyes responds, “It’s not me that is torturing me. It’s the vengeance of the
Lord—did you not hear?” (12). Lucifer banishes him all the same. Hell, it
seems, is less a prison than a mirror, built for narcissistic souls to stare
down their shame for eternity. As he explains, “Ten billion years spent
providing a place for dead mortals to torture themselves. And like all
masochists they called the shots—“burn me” “freeze me” “eat me” “hurt me”...and
we did” (18). In many ways, Lucifer emerges as a shadowy Batman, rounding up a
universe of Jokers and Scarecrows, all of whom want to be caught and punished,
impressed by the enormity of their crimes. Yet in the end, they all died, saint
and sinners alike. Lucifer is tired of the war, tired of being the scapegoat:
“I had never made one of them do anything. Never. They only live their own tiny
lives. I do not live their lives for them” (18).
No comments:
Post a Comment