Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Jerry Cornelius in M M´s Multiverse, of DC Comics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Thanks, Jeremiah, I may well look into it further. Most intrigued by your comments on its modern day equivalents.
    You see, it's... it's no good, Montag. We've all got to be alike. The only way to be happy is for everyone to be made equal.

    -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-

    Image Hive :-: Wikiverse :-: Media Hive

    :-: Onsite Offerings :-:


    "I am an observer of life, a non-participant who takes no sides. I am in the regimented society, but not of it." Moondog, 1964

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Suilebhain
      I have always seen the elements of the Champion as one being, that is, the makeup of the Agent of Change that is required to push the Multiverse into the new cycle:

      The Champion
      The Companion
      The Lover
      The Weapon
      The Adversary

      In some cases, one element is stronger or more dominant than the others.

      For example, the Lover in Elric's incarnation was weak, the Companion skilled, and the Weapon extremely powerful. However, in Jerry Cornelius' incarnation, the Weapon is very weak by comparison (needlegun), the Lover is nearly dead, and the Companion, Una Persson, is powerful (and alternates between Jerry and Una who actually is the Companion and who is the Champion at what point). Corum's weapon is not magical, but the demon artifacts that are grafted to him are, thus the Weapon is not a conventional handheld device, but something that is a part and yet not a part of the Champion.

      So, when we see Jhary a Conel show up as Corum's Companion, the spectrum of probabilities for combination is carried one place further but the fabric is intact.

      Of course, I could be totally full of crap, too.

      ((oops, didn't mean to post after MM on this - just took me that long))
      This viewpoint is very interesting. The Eternal Champion is in http://www.wikipedia.com
      How about you include this explanation above in definition of Wikipedia para EC?
      Rita.

      Comment


      • #18
        Interesting idea. I never thought of myself as any kind of authority before, more of a voice in the wilderness.

        Most of the people I have ever discussed this with before were people I was trying to get to read the books, you know, the people who think that the Dragonlance books are the greatest thing since the microwave oven.

        Actually, though, because what I am stating is based on my own views and "not necessarily that of the author", I would feel uncomfortable putting such a theory out in a public place as fact, though I suppose in a way Mike's added comment did not refute this view.

        What do you think, Mike? Shall I wiki this theory of the Eternal Champion and his/her being part of the Agent of Change?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Governor of Rowe Island
          Thanks, Jeremiah, I may well look into it further. Most intrigued by your comments on its modern day equivalents.
          Fawlty Towers is another great example...

          Basil is Punch - bad tempered, doesn't quite understand what's going on, hates his wife.

          Manuel is Zanni - immigrant clown, doesn't speak the language very well, always getting beaten but effectively indestructible

          Polly is Columbine - the servant girl who is much smarter than her master.

          Jerermiah

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Suilebhain
            Actually, though, because what I am stating is based on my own views and "not necessarily that of the author", I would feel uncomfortable putting such a theory out in a public place as fact, though I suppose in a way Mike's added comment did not refute this view.
            That's the great thing about Wikipedia. If someone disagrees, they can just change it. Also, you could just say that it's one possible interpretation of something subject to many interpretations, to give readers a feel of the sort of thing the EC saga is about.

            Comment

            Working...
            X