Talk:The Invisibles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Clean-up

There's a lot of stuff in the article that amounts to little more than blind guessing. For example the idea that "The stress reality feels due to the action of Robin going back in time and then returning causes the apocalypse" is entirely baseless. The series is intentionally ambiguous. I think the plot summary should be cut down if for no other reason than to weed out the wild speculation it contains. - jmscstl

Although this article is accurate and informative, it could use some quality clean-up:

  • The article is too long, focusing as it does on a detailed plot synopsis of each trade paperback in the series. The plot summaries can be substantially condensed, leaving more room for, e.g., brief analysis and cultural or literary influences, in addition to populating the "External Links" section which is now blank.
  • The style should conform more closely to encyclopedic standards. Although grammatically and syntactically correct, certain paragraphs contain pop-journalistic or advertising-copy affectations ("Pause. Play"; use of long ellipses). Otherwise, a good effort. -- Michael Sidlofsky 15:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Started work on the page, tidied up parts as well as expanding it.The plot summarries do need some extensive cleaning up. It would be good if we could list the artists who worked on each volume as well. I intend to return to carry on work on it.Logan1138 16:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

~I was the one who extended the Invisibles entry a while back. I understand what you two are saying about the length of the summaries, but like the person below me, I really do believe they shed light on the plot of the series like no other source on the web. If things are changed, I hope that at least the parts concerning the Hand of Glory and Jack Frost's destiny are left in since they are two of the most confusing elements in the story and not even "The Bomb" fansite has been able to thouroughly explain them. Thanks for all your feedback.

What evidence is there that Jack made and then sent the Hand of Glory back in time? There's the green glove thing, sure but that hardly supports the idea that Jack got time travel powers all the sudden.

I had a good read through my issues and yes, i changed my mind and i agree, the summaries are very good and needed. I only tweaked a few things, added some Wki links and added images to break up the text and illustate the summaries. I really don't see much, if any further work being done on it. However i still intend to come back and credit the artists who worked on the series. Logan1138 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I read the whole thing. I agree it's pretty good, although there is a fair share of awkward sentences and some confusing punctuation. But I really think source references are missing for several of the explanations. The plot summaries contain a lot of interpretation/analysis, and most of it might be correct, but if it isn't explicitly (or fairly explicitly) stated in the comic itself, it should be sourced. And I think there are quite a few of those statements in the text.
I've read a lot of Invisibles discussion and analysis, and I got the feeling when reading this that some of it is the author's interpretation more than "fact." 193.91.181.142 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC) (Nick)

[edit] Thoughts on the cleanup

Actually, I think the detailed summaries help in the understanding of the series. I've looked around the internet and have yet to see such a large and detailed summary of the invisibles, that sort of "explains all" and I think the summaries deserve to be there to help people understand what exactly happened in the series. Even the website the bomb does not provide such a detailed play by play of what went on in the comic book.

spoooooillleerrrrsss....

whatever

[edit] Missing data

Which year was it published!?

[edit] An excellent article - much appreciated

As it stands (02 December 2005) I think it is an excellent summary of the series -- lucid and informative. I've spent the last week re-reading The Invisibles from start to finish, and it STILL took this article to help me decipher the last twelve issues. I'm not sure where the idea that John = Quimper comes from, but that's part of the fun, isn't it? Good work all, and thanks!

Thanks.I think i speak for everyone who has worked on this and say it's good to see it's so appreciated.Logan1138 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest Spoiler?

video game... inhaled as a gas... intentionally not included?

~It was just a metaphor for how the Invisibles were playing a game. The whole series wasn't actually a videogame.

[edit] Characters

The section is a nice idea but it might be a better idea to create a seperate page for them to be listed as such. It doesn't seem neccessary to list every character in such a way. Plus a seperate page could be better spoiler protected. Thoughts?Logan1138 15:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

~Makes sense.


Ok then, i'll move the characters section to a seperate page and slap spoiler tags,etc on it. Plus it'll help keep the size of the main article down as it's getting a bit big now.Logan1138 11:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invisiblism

It would be nice to have some analysis on the philosophies presented in the series, the illusion of human struggle and the subjectiveness of reality and the inevitability of the future and the search for freedoms and all that. I'd do it but I'd immediatley fall into endless run-on sentences with pop journalism sentiments and heavy bias. :)

I'd do it, too, but I have no idea how to word any of it. ;)

If it us added, then I suggest it is included in an "anlysis" section after the plot summaries. Solofire6 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try! Tell me what you think. :) Solofire6 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Invisible Kingdom

I added in some ideas I learned from a friend of mine who's like an Invisibles guru. Solofire6 22:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture Reference

There are a lot of references to popular culture and conspiracy theories in particular. Should a page be made for such things - especially those that aren't the center of the plot ? Like the inclusion of Rennes-le-Chatteau. Or real life people who appear or are mentioned, such as the scene with John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe and how Princess Di refused to give birth to the Outer Church's new king thing. Thoughts? Atropos 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active status?

I'd argue the phrasing of what members of the team are active at the end of the series, since at that point the entire reality collapses in the supercontext. 6_9 Invisible Queen 12:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Listing the members is unnecessary. There is a page for that and this a page about the series, not the actual organization. Solofire6 01:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review, Good Article, Featured Article?

I was wondering if anyone wanted to get this a peer review and eventually up to GA or even FA status? I think the series definitely deserves it and the article is already pretty good. Atropos 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchists

i am removing List of Invisibles Characters from the Category:Fictional anarchists because the article should be included there, not the list of caracteres. If you consider that they are not anarchists, please remove it, i don't know anything about this comic. I'm also leving a not in Talk:List of Invisibles Characters, thanks --Cacuija (my talk) 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gnostisism

How can there be an article of such length about The Invisibles with no mention of Gnostic ideas? 193.91.181.142 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (Nick)

That's a good point; some of the gnostic influences are screamingly obvious. Has there been any academic work done on the series yet? That would provide a nice way to source a section on gnosticism. --Starwed 10:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If only to disclaim it - KM describes gnosticism as misguided in the last issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.8.193 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified Analysis

Most of the analysis is verified by the series itself.

Exactly. For example, I'm sure Helga's translation of the 64-letter alphabet is seen as unverified. It's not stated that by learning the 64-letter alphabet she becomes enlightened, but it is stated earlier on in the series. Both Sir Miles and Cell 23 say that the 23-letter alphabet limits human ability to express abstract thought since they cannot properly name/describe the reality of the world they inhabit. The Invisibles see reality for what it is briefly when Cell 23 exposes them to words derived from the 64-letter alpabet in Counting to None. Plus, the Grant Morrison interview in Anarchy For the Masses: The Disinformation Guide to the Invisibles confirms a lot of what is said in this article. Solofire6 07:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the series IS very self-explicative and provides analysis of itself; however, it is also very open to a wide variety of possible interpretations by its own admission. I think it would be nice to have an analysis section of some type Jowe27 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis Section

I removed the following from the article, because it's uncited, and sounds like original research. See WP:OR for my reasoning. Something is original research if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". I don't think anyone did this maliciously here, but this section is an analysis that isn't attributed to a source. The comics alone can't be cited, because the comics don't explicitly analyze themselves. Brad T. Cordeiro 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand about the Analysis, but are the trade summaries OK? Solofire6 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis

Like many of Grant Morrison's works, The Invisibles brings up various questions about the nature of reality. When Ragged Robin writes her own version of "The Invisibles" in the future, it is implied that through fiction, writers can influence the course of history.
Language's limiting effect on man is also explored within the series. As language is unable to define anything beyond three-dimensional reality (see Counting to None), it holds mankind back, keeping them from realizing their full potential. More enlightened characters in The Invisibles know the full 64-letter alphabet and are able to name and experience what normally could never even be conceived.
Morrison delves into the futility of violence when he has King Mob's old girlfriend Jacqui quote Philip K. Dick, saying that those who "fight the Empire [are doomed] to be infected by its derangement". Later on in the series, King Mob gives up his violent ways and devotes himself to pacificism. Also, the Invisibles eventually state that they are not fighting the Outer Church as the reader has been led to believe for the bulk of the series, but are actually on "a rescue mission" to save humanity by elevating their consciousness, as seen in the final issue of the series.
Percy Shelley, a poet whom Morrison made into an Invisible for the sake of the series, theorized that utopia could be found in the mind and that it was "waiting for [humanity] to grow up and recognize it and come home". In other words, humanity holds utopia within themselves and only when they expand their minds can they access it. Between the defeat of the King Archon in 1999 and the end of the world in 2012, King Mob and Jack Frost's Invisibles cell work towards this goal be elevating human consciousness with new ideas and inventions, such as King Mob's Invisibles video game and the popularity of "MemePlexes" over personalities.
To ultimately achieve utopia, man must first cast away its dualistic nature. As Morrison states in an interview with Disinfo in the company's guide to the series, Anarchy for the Masses, "our universe is actually a very simple fractal generated by a simple process, and it only has binaries in it. Humans can conceive beyond good and evil, and beyond duality, but yet we can't do it. The universe stops you. But in mathetmatical states people can actually go beyond duality. We know it exists; these things are there already, I think. They seem to be; it's just on another level. A five-dimensional consciousness."[1] This five-dimensional consciousness is what inhabits the supercontext that will assimilate mankind. It created spacetime so it could experience growth and can only return to the supercontext when its growth is complete, when humanity recognizes its true nature, as Jack Frost learns in The Invisibles Vol. 3 #2.
The Outer Church and the Invisible College, chaos and order, freedom and control--all of these ideas are opposing sides of the same coin. Binaries, as Morrison described. As time reaches its end, it speeds up, condensing spacetime into a singularity. In the eleventh issue of The Invisible Kingdom, Jack Frost's childhood friend Gaz describes this as existence "shrinking to a dot...everything ever...all the stars and days", which Jack confirms. As this condensing occurs, the number of binary pairs becomes fewer and fewer – everything polarizes around one side or the other, and eventually the symbols of each side, Barbelith and the King-of-All-Tears, are eliminated. The subjective nature of reality as defined by language is eliminated, allowing the binary to be resolved in a synergy. As King Mob says in the final issue of the series, the supercontext, the "synergy", is a plane of existence where "you identify with everything that is not-self and dissolve the existential alienation dilemma in unity. All is one and several is none." In the supercontext, there is no individuality, only unity.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Invisibles1.jpg

Image:Invisibles1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self referential

In Volume 2, Issue 3 appears as a comic book King Mob is reading in issue 4, Mob even insults the writing. I think this is noteable, especially given the whole 'nature of reality' Grant has done. Lots42 03:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary

As a plot summary, 7,000 word slabs of text present two problems for Wikipedia, both of them pretty serious.

The most important concern is that at this length any straightforward description of the plot amounts to a derived work. The second concern, still pretty serious, is that it's impossible to glean anything about the plot except by reading the whole thing. There is far too much detail. A much shorter version trimming all but the most important details is essential.

I've removed the long summary meanwhile.

Please replace with a briefer plot summary that can be licensed under the GFDL, written to Wikipedia standards. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. 7000 words is not very much given that it is summarizing 59 very plot-filled comic books, or 3 volumes (and I would put it at 6900 once the formatting and comments are stripped out). That's about 2000 words each, which strikes me as very reasonable. It only looks odd because of the odd decision to lump the entire series together in a single page.
  2. Your copyright concerns strike me as risible and panicky, as fine an example of copyright paranoia as ever I've seen. A few pages of plot summary is not going to bring down a copyright holocaust down upon Wikipedia's head (even if Morrison was not the kind of fellow who wouldn't sue a project like us). Further, my understanding of the relevant issues was that the summary had to be sufficiently detailed and lengthy as to be able to substanially obviate the need for the original (affecting commercial viability, and since 'won't hurt it commercially' is one of the fair-use criterion...); a 2000 word summary cannot replace even a novel, much less a comic book - which if you'll recall, is a mixed medium of art (especially art in this case) as much as text.
  3. Your concern about overview would be best addressed by making this a series article, and splitting the volumes out and leaving main templates and overviews in their place. I doubt this would be acceptable to you, however - lord forfend mere comic books get 5 or 6 articles on Wikipedia. --Gwern (contribs) 03:18 7 February 2008 (GMT)