Tobias March
10-19-2006, 12:13 PM
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=148183
When I was reading over the thread above, I kept thinking how the argument stems more from how we would like Sue Storm to be portrayed, then how she is. Is she a paragon of feminine strength, sphinx-like in her effortless femininity? Or would a feminist like Greer see her as a brood-mare, a male fantasy figure created back in the sixties. The Invisible Woman.
Of course she's a comic book character and as a piece of fiction her readers have their own identification with her, with how they see her and the qualities they desire to see. But just how subjective is this?
Mark Millar's depiction of her draws complaints in the original blog posting for showing her to be submissive. She gives Reed the 'perfect night', before fleeing. This is said to be out of character. Is this because that is something Sue would never do, or something a woman would never do? Millar's already shown us a terrifyingly dysfunctional relationship in the Ultimates with Pym and Janet Van Dyne. Here we saw a physically abusive relationship, that neither party could completely escape from. It's a cynical view of a relationship, but I cannot remember anyone criticising it as being completely unrealistic or out of character. The advantage there was that this was not '616 proper'. Millar could characterise howsoever he wanted. Plus his undeniable cynicism simply rubs some people up the wrong way. All of the Civil War cast are said to be 'out of character'. But once again is this a subjective judgement, or can it be defended on the basis of the demands of the story?
When I was reading over the thread above, I kept thinking how the argument stems more from how we would like Sue Storm to be portrayed, then how she is. Is she a paragon of feminine strength, sphinx-like in her effortless femininity? Or would a feminist like Greer see her as a brood-mare, a male fantasy figure created back in the sixties. The Invisible Woman.
Of course she's a comic book character and as a piece of fiction her readers have their own identification with her, with how they see her and the qualities they desire to see. But just how subjective is this?
Mark Millar's depiction of her draws complaints in the original blog posting for showing her to be submissive. She gives Reed the 'perfect night', before fleeing. This is said to be out of character. Is this because that is something Sue would never do, or something a woman would never do? Millar's already shown us a terrifyingly dysfunctional relationship in the Ultimates with Pym and Janet Van Dyne. Here we saw a physically abusive relationship, that neither party could completely escape from. It's a cynical view of a relationship, but I cannot remember anyone criticising it as being completely unrealistic or out of character. The advantage there was that this was not '616 proper'. Millar could characterise howsoever he wanted. Plus his undeniable cynicism simply rubs some people up the wrong way. All of the Civil War cast are said to be 'out of character'. But once again is this a subjective judgement, or can it be defended on the basis of the demands of the story?