good dogs

A review of We3 #3, by Grant Morrison, Frank Quitely, Jamie Grant, and Todd Klein.  Spoilers follow.

"I just showed you a soul being born."
-T.O. Morrow, JLA #5, May 1997

A number of souls are born in the final issue of We3 as the characters make ethical decisions and develop independent selves.  What's surprising, given the prior issues of this series, is not that the trio of rogue animal weapons are able to form such selves but that so many humans finally, belatedly decide to join them.

The injured 3 confronts Animal Weapon 4 alone; Roseanne Berry gives 1 his name back; 2 finally commits to the disintegrating team and to a fragile but self-willed attempt at a home; a homeless man turns down a reward; and Trendle and the General both compromise their operation to do what they know is right.  Almost every character develops a functioning ethical self in the finale, except for Weapon 4, and there's a good reason for that, too.

The final issue is punctuated with moral triumphs both large and small, not what I was expecting from this series.  The first issue promised a story that could only end in tragedy, with We3 doomed to die without their medication and racing toward a home they didn't know they had been made completely unsuitable for.  The final act continues along that trajectory, subjecting the animals to a degeneration that's uncomfortable to watch, before veering off into a happier ending that's dependent on a convenient plot twist (and a beneficient amnesia as concerns the meds).  The heightened emotionalism has served this comic well, but I wonder if Morrison loves these characters too much to subject them to what should by all rights have been their fates.  I would have thought there was only one way 1 could ever reach the place of "RUN NO MORE"; that was what lent the earlier issues so much of their tragic power.

Fortunately, We3 #3 still packs all the formal punch of its predecessors thanks to Mr. Frank Quitely (aided and abetted by Morrison's visually-conscious scripts, no doubt).  This issue isn't quite as relentlessly innovative as the last two, but Quitely sprinkles the battle scenes with little gems: the drop through a brick wall and onto the next page (something that seems lifted from the bodiless but mechanically linear "ghost cameras" of video games - We3 as the first comic written on the Half-Life engine?), the tiny panels offering exploded details of chaotic and high-speed fights (including a miniscule dog that seems to represent how 1 views himself after a whiff of 4's combat pheromones), the panels that descend like a flight of steps or a bomb countdown simultaneously.  These maneuvers never seem like motiveless stunts, but rather perfect formal expressions of plot points, character perceptions, or the spatial movement of the characters through the setting.  This is a comic that moves, making it exhilarating to read quite independently of its story.

And yet it's also still a Wolverine comic, a cinematic shoot-em-up in which even characters barely capable of speech get action-hero send-off lines.  The cat (who's been set up as the Wolverine of this group, the sullen rebel and amoral killer) gets her moment of fury in a pin-up splash page - complete with vintage Dark Knight Returns lightning bolt arcing in the background.  Like all of Morrison's best work, We3 pivots on the edges of experimentalism and accessibility, using tried-and-true story formulas (action movies, The Incredible Journey) to deliver dazzling formal displays and theories about ethics, subjectivity, and language as a technology of control.

"'Freedom'?  The word isn't even present in her vocabulary.  I should know:  I left it out."
-T.O. Morrow, JLA #5, May 1997

"!1!  The name on your collar was 'Bandit.'  U. R. BANDIT."
-Dr. Roseanne Berry, We3 #3, March 2005

I don't mean to denigrate We3 by comparing it to a Wolverine comic, or to Morrison's previous work on the trend-settingly mainstream JLA.  These comparisons should only demonstrate how appropriately Morrison chooses genre material to accomodate his signal themes, or how flexible those genres are in being so readily adapted.

(By the way, speaking of language as a technology of control, you have no idea how difficult it was to write that last sentence without resorting to some dead and debased animal metaphor:  pet themes, hobby horses, betes noires.  I'd guess Morrison is well aware of our tendency to metaphorize animals until the metaphor is lost and all that remains is a dehumanizing association:  why else, in this of all series, would he use the phrase "fascist pig"?  And note what happens to the only actual pig glimpsed in this series, and what happens to Weapon 4.)

My favorite moment in the final issue is, beyond any doubt, the scene where Dr. Berry restores Bandit's name.  Knowing and accepting the consequences this time, she gives a loyal, unfortunate dog something he desperately needs - telling him where "1" stops and he begins.  It's the only way he can live a life that isn't filled with violence and death, and as such it's far more kind and important than her first, disastrous gift of life and freedom that starts the series.

Without this new act of mercy that life won't be long at all, and a danger to other lives.  1 will briefly think of becoming a "BAD DOG" after the tragedies that befall his team, but once he runs into the real thing the difference between them is clear.  He returns to helping his teammates and protecting civilians - successfully this time, unlike the harrowing rescue scene in issue #2 - finally becoming a "GUD DOG" only after learning that he has an identity independent of his erstwhile status as a government killing machine.  Language and a name will ultimately set him free, unlike Weapon 4, who can make speech balloons but can only fill them with the solid blacks of rage.  No souls will be born there.

Despite the surprisingly, disappointingly happy ending, We3 is still far and away the most exciting comic I read in 2004 - and quite possibly in 2005, as well.  I can't wait until the collected edition comes out.

For more commentary on We3, see Jog, Ian Brill, Abhay Khosla, Johanna Draper Carlson, Johnny Bacardi, Jef Harmatz and Peiratikos.

Comments

[Guy LeCharles Gonzalez]

While I still think this mini-series has been ridiculously overpraised - largely on Morrison's reputation, IMO - you've written the best and most thorough positive critique I've come across yet and given me some food for thought. Nice work!

[gorjus]

I agree. Excellent review, Marc. I was torn with the first issue of We3, partially because it is a relatively lean (word-wise) issue. The third issue was a nice fit, largely because I loved the "restoration" of Bandit's name.

That moment speaks to the larger military culture as well: despite the Army's desperate, and frustratingly contradictory, advertising campaign for "An Army of One," effectiveness in the types of situations in real life (and in We3) depends on a collective mentality and trasmission of orders based on time-tested plans.

So when Bandit get his name back, he doesn't just reclaim his identity: he receives his freedom as an individual, unchained from the line of command.

[Marc]

Thanks for the kind words, both of you.

One of the reasons I love this series is that there's always something more to say about it - it supports thoughtful reading and discussion in a way that a lot of comics just don't. I wanted to work in something about the covers, the way they reflect the "genders" and levels of development of each of the animals in their owners - the male Bandit belonged to a guy with spartan furnishings and girly mags, the female Tinker to a woman, and the less intelligent Pirate to a couple of kids - but there wasn't a way to fit it in. So I thought I'd bury it in the comments.

[Rose]

Hey, Marc, I was going to write about the gendered covers, too! I also get the impression that the owners' ages go down (I'm basing this on handwriting, really) as the three covers progress but (or "and") the colors increase in both number and intensity. I may still, since it ties in to something I want to say about another review of We3, but for now I seem to be doing nothing but making comments about the book everywhere else as if that will exempt me from having to talk about it in my own space.

This was a great post, though, and I'm glad you said that about the covers so that I felt I could say something beyond "great post!" since that always makes me feel dorky and unhelpful.

[Johnny Bacardi]

"disappointingly happy ending"?

[Marc]

How many of the animals were you expecting to survive after the first issue?

Morrison essentially recants on his implied promise of a tragic ending. That is a disappointment.

[Duncan]

Strangely, re: Half-Life, I analogised #1's base layouts to Metal Gear Solid on Barbelith.

[Michael Denton]

Marc - fantastic interpretation of the book. You've certainly brought out elements I (and other reviewers) didn't consider. Yours and other reviews have been so eloquent compared to my own that I'm almost ashamed I wrote it.

The cover theme is striking too. I hadn't considered the intelligence/age of the animals compared to their owners, but it certainly fits.

Obviously, and surprisingly different from most comics, the covers add to the tragic element. They let you know that these animals were loved. They give you their names and, to me at least, implies these animals were stolen. They weren't carelessly lost; the owners cared too much for them. These animals were taken by force, making their status all the more horrific. And by suggesting personalities for the animals, it helps the reader relate to them more as well.

I certainly believed that Morrison was going to kill off all of these animals; I saw it as his ultimate statement on animal rights: how humans brutalize animals. And despite the softer ending, it still is. I am not disappointed; I think his message comes across more clear and acceptible. These animals, although home now, live with the serious scars of their treatment. Had they been destroyed, we may feel the pang of loss, but may ultimately dismiss it as we do the destruction of countless strays and abandoned animals. Here, however, we are given a chance at redemption, along with the humans in the story, to better care and love these animals.

[Marc]

Thanks, Michael.