Interesting Analysis of Morrison's New X-Men

[Dan Apodaca]

I found this, and I think a lot of it's really spot-on. If you ever had any questions about Morrison's run on the book, or were curious about it, this should be pretty helpful. Also, if you're someone who didn't like the run, you might find that there's more to it, or that it's different than you originally thought.

It goes character by character, offering insight and opinions.

Cyclops: Without a doubt, the central character in Morrison’s run would have to be Scott Summers. Prior to Morrison’s run, Cyclops “died” in a sense, becoming possessed by Apocalypse (or his true name, En Sabah Nur as he’s referred to throughout the run). Cyclops acts as a metaphor for the X-Men books as a whole—he’s afraid to change, he’s never been allowed to be anything other than a superhero. In comes Emma Frost, and suddenly, Cyclops discovers a new world that he never knew existed. He feels like he’s suffocating—he feels all these new emotions and has these desires from before. At first, his wife, Jean, explains this as residual from Apocalypse’s possession--“You’re not the only person who was ever possessed by an evil spirit, Scott… the bad feeling goes away.”). Scott’s reply to this comment from his wife shows us that he has changed from the beginning--I don’t know if I feel bad, Jean. I just feel strange and different, that’s all, and I don’t want to hurt you or anyone.” We see other quotes from Cyclops throughout the run that help to identify him as lost, feeling without a sense of purpose or belonging--“I can’t make it feel like it used to…” he says to Jean. It is with Cyclops that the deconstruction of the X-Men mythos begins.

The themes of sexuality are also a very big part of Cyclops and his optic blasts are a phallic symbol. We first discover this in “Germ-Free Generation” when his optic blast strikes the Statue of David in the nether regions. In “Assault on Weapon Plus,” Cyclops is at the Hellfire Club watching as a woman strips and he says it’s sexless and unarousing and there’s a close-up on his visor. After this, he finds he isn’t able to unleash his optic blasts. After Jean discovered about his psychic affair with Emma, he tried to run from his desires, he tried to hide them.

Emma Frost: The former White Queen turned X-Man, Emma represents a hope for the future, a chance for change. She joins up with the X-Men to cause trouble, to shake things up, but she finds herself falling in love with Cyclops, who is arguably the epitome of the X-Men. In this way, Emma is essentially Morrison writing himself into the story. If you look back on Morrison’s interviews which came before his first issue was released, he talked about how he would shake things up. He promised love triangles and soap operas and he promised us change. That’s what Emma promises us, but like Emma, Morrison fell in love with these characters and with what makes them work.

Jean Grey: Another crucial part of NEW X-MEN is Scott’s wife, Jean Grey-Summers. You should notice that I didn’t call her Phoenix and there is a reason for that, which I will address in a moment. Jean is the past of the X-Men books. She knows something is wrong, but she doesn’t know how to fix it, so instead she tries to ignore the problem, hoping it will go away, demonstrated when she says, “…this marriage feels very strange and cold, Scott” as well as her refusal to read Scott’s mind when he asks her to.

Jean is also a power junkie. During the first story-arc, “E is for Extinction,” Jean appears very restrained and uptight and she’s lonely. But at the end of “Germ-Free Generation,” she becomes a different person after her Phoenix manifestation (“…I feel amazing, Logan. I had all these negative feelings about Scott, but… they’re gone now. I feel great. Did you see what I just did?”). Like the old reader, Jean still longs for those power struggles and to bring things back to the way they were. Which is, in a sense, a bit contradictory given that a book like X-MEN is supposed to be about change and evolution, and Jean herself makes note of this contradiction in the “Murder at the Mansion” story-arc--“…I have the worst temper, Bishop. I run around the world preaching peace and brotherhood, and when I come home, the first thing I do is fight.” Because Jean represents the past, this is why it is necessary for her to die at the end of the run, because only with the death can change come about--and her death indeed does cause a change. With her gone, Cyclops first leaves and everything falls apart. Or Cyclops stays with Emma and we see hope for the future. But Morrison knows that even if Cyclops embraces Emma, that even if the X-Men mythos embrace the future and a chance for change--the old ways will eventually return, just like the Phoenix will always rise again.

Professor X: Charles is sort of lost in a state of limbo. He’s still trying to cling to his dream, still trying to cling to why he started this all in the first place (Beast: “He’s trying to remind himself what it’s all for.”). He even attempts to embrace the future after the death of Magneto and after Cassandra forces him to out himself. He tries the new way, the pro-mutant way, but in the end, his prize student (Quentin Quire) rebels against him and turns to the “dark side.” But Xavier is perhaps a bit to blame for that, because with his new pro-mutant stance that tends to alienate humans (“We’re in no mood to play chimpanzee politics.”). With Magneto now gone, Xavier has no polar opposite and in a way, he has no one to keep him in check--this is something we’ve seen before, with “Onslaught,” and it is for this reason that one of the memories Xavier loses when Jean contains his mind within her own is the memory of “how good it felt to overcome the monster Onslaught." Xavier is going in circles with his dream and as the architect of the dream, he represents, perhaps, veteran X-Men writer Chris Claremont, who is credited as being the architect of the X-Men. Notice how when Xavier recovers from another evil entity taking control of his body, he is able to walk--but once his old rival returns from the dead yet again to terrorize the world yet again, Xavier loses the use of his legs yet again. It’s all an endless cycle, which is why at the end of “Riot At Xavier’s,” he essentially gives up by stepping down as headmaster and this is why at the end of “Planet X,” he says to Magneto, “Perhaps it is time we put away the old dreams, the old manifestos… and just listened for a while.”

Beast: A frequent criticism I’ve heard of Morrison is that Beast was essentially shoehorned into NEW X-MEN, that the character had no real purpose. This is a bit of an inaccuracy. Beast is the X-Men reader who is on the fence--he has changed since he came into the books, several times and he misses the old days. But at the same time, he realizes that change is inevitable. Notice that all the X-Men go through a sort of evolution in the course of the book. At first, Beast tries to stay with the old ways, which is why he tries to reason with Cassandra Nova as a human being and he ends up becoming mortally injured. Then, he tries to throw away the old ways and go completely with the new, and he pulls stunts to show this off (pretending to be gay, his comment that “all humans look alike to me”).

Wolverine: In a way, Wolverine represents everything that’s wrong with the X-Men. The X-Men is a book about evolution and change and pacifist ideas and who is their most popular member? A mutant who never ages and, in his own words, “all I’m good for’s killing.” There’s a reason Morrison keeps Wolverine in the background for most of his run, and the reason for that is because he understands that Wolverine shouldn’t really have a place in a book about pacifism. And the story-arc where Wolverine comes to the forefront? “Assault on Weapon Plus,” an action-oriented story-arc that focuses on Wolverine, the trigger-happy Fantomex, and a disillusioned Cyclops. And we know that it is contradictory to the X-Men because first Wolverine reminds Cyclops several times that they’re not on an X-Men mission and Cyclops says to Wolverine, “X-jackets off.” And where do they go on this mission? Into The World, where time is stopped and started as the creators please. And who is behind the Weapon Plus Program? Sublime, who I will get to soon.

Fantomex: I would think that it is obvious at this point to most people, but Fantomex was created as satire--a spoof on every mystery bad-ass character created in the pages of the X-books in an attempt to capitalize on the appeal of Wolverine, and we see this in several ways. Fantomex was created by the same program that created Wolverine. Wolverine has a healing factor, Fantomex has a nervous system separate from his body. Wolverine is Canadian, Fantomex is French (or he pretends to be). Both have no scruples about killing. And Fantomex even dresses in the trademark bad-ass clothes--flowing trench coat, hidden face, a “ninja-Matrix freak” as Monet calls him. The irony in this is that the bad-ass acts as if Jean Grey was interested in him, when in reality she seemed to simply pity him for his attempts to prove his attraction. And perhaps the greatest line to come out of Fantomex’s mouth is when he says to Magneto, “is everything you say a cliché?” when in fact, everything both of them says is a cliché. In “Assault on Weapon Plus,” we discover the truth behind Fantomex. He was created by Weapon Plus and Sublime to be the cool stealth killer for their team of Super Sentinels.

[Dan Apodaca]

Magneto/Xorn: Ah yes, one of the frequent criticisms has also been Morrison’s portrayal of Magneto. But what many people do not seem to understand is that we only see the real Magneto in a few places--the place where Magneto appears the least is in fact “Planet X,” the story-arc where Magneto is supposed to be the focal point. Except it’s not really Magneto, it’s only a shadow of who he really is. The “Magneto was posing as Xorn” explanation is something that hasn’t sat well with many people and don’t worry, I will get to that momentarily. All throughout “Planet X,” we don’t see Magneto--we see Sublime controlling Magneto like a puppet (right before Magneto cripples Xavier, he says, “I’ve been holding you up--and now I’m cutting your strings.”--a reference that Sublime is in fact the puppet master). There is one time when we see the true Magneto in “Planet X.” It is right after Magneto tells Esme that she’s nothing to him but a means to an end. “You made Xorn too well--in the image of your idealism, your strength, your wisdom. I am your inner star, Erik. I am the conscience you can never silence. I will never let you be.” We know this isn’t Xavier, because his mind is blocked. And we know it isn’t Phoenix, because the word balloon isn’t black and isn’t in the form of a telepathic bubble. The questions people always ask--why would Magneto use drugs? Why would Magneto reverse the poles? Simple answer--he wouldn’t. But Sublime would. Remember, in “Here Comes Tomorrow,” Wolverine said to Jean, “Magneto killed you under orders he never understood.” Magneto, like Cassandra, is a metaphor for the writers of the X-Men books--a puppet at the mercy of the puppet master.

We see the real Magneto in Xorn’s solo issue (#127, “Of Living And Dying”). Also, in the 2001 Annual, “The Man From Room X,” a lot of people are confused about how these events transpired. Who was Ao Jun and what was Sublime’s involvement? Ao Jun was a mutant servant of Magneto who built Feng Tu to give Magneto a safe haven after Genosha, a place he could recuperate. With Sublime’s U-Men harvesting mutant organs, I imagine it was Ao Jun’s plan to try and lure Sublime with the prospect of a mutant with a star for a brain and used the pretext of Xorn to lure him in. After Sublime was betrayed by Ao Jun however, Magneto escaped. You notice that Xorn didn’t go right to the X-Men’s side, instead he went into seclusion for a time. It wasn’t Magneto’s intention to infiltrate the X-Men under the Xorn pretense--Xorn was simply concocted to allow Magneto to bide his time and lick his wounds. It was during this time that Sublime took over Magneto and, under the Xorn guise, infiltrated the X-Men.

Cassandra Nova: Something else which requires explanation is Cassandra Nova. She is not Xavier’s Mummudrai, or the “bizarro-Xavier,” if you will. She is, simply put, Xavier’s twin sister who was stillborn brought back to life and forced to commit the Genoshan massacre under the orders of Sublime. At the end of “Imperial,” that is why Cassandra Nova’s mind was wiped blank--it was always blank, Sublime was just forced out from her body once she merged with Stuff. And this is because Stuff was an alien lifeform and Sublime, despite all its power, is still Earth-based. More importantly, Cassandra is the new reader. New to the X-Men, knows nothing of the past, “a synthetic brain programmed to learn.” That is why the first thing Jean draws on the blackboard when Xavier says, “let’s start from the beginning” is a giant X. Oh and for the record, Cassandra and Ernst are the same person. Just to put that to rest.

Sublime: Look back to NEW X-MEN #154, Morrison’s final issue. In the first pages, read Sublime’s words, “The cataclysmic primal screams of the newborn Earth woke us. And we knew ourselves as one mind. And we were ‘first genome.’ RNA. DNA. Perfectly-adapted form. The pinnacle of evolution. Self-aware, immortal. Sublime.” Sublime was more than just John Sublime, a human who wanted to be a mutant. Sublime was more than the mutant-enhancing drug, Kick. Sublime was bacteria fighting against evolution, trying to stop change. You can look at Sublime as a metaphor for the editors on the X-Men books. Why did Magneto keep coming back to life to cause a lot of trouble? Because the editors wished it that way. Why is it the X-Men keep getting brought “back to basics,” why is there a revamp of the X-Men every few years or so? Because of the editors. The editors are the ones fighting change, because it’s unknown, they fear it. Because if change doesn’t work out in their favor, it’s the end for them and their jobs are over. Just like with Sublime, if evolution doesn’t work out in its favor, its job is over. Sublime was the one who caused Cassandra to kill 16 million mutants in Genosha. Sublime was the one who caused Quentin to riot. Sublime was the one behind the Weapon Plus Program and the “gimmick” idea of marketing super soldiers to the public. Sublime was the one who caused Magneto to destroy New York and kill Jean. And it was Sublime who brought Jean back to life in the future after killing her.


Ultimately, NEW X-MEN is a deconstruction story of the X-Men because it’s telling the readers that it’s time to grow up. This is told to us in a number of different ways, but the finest example is Cyclops’ conversation with Wolverine at the Hellfire Club in “Assault on Weapon Plus,” where Cyclops says, “Jean and I have known each other for so long, Logan… every time I look at her I see this teenage girl I met… and I feel like a teenage boy. But I’m not anymore.” What Morrison is saying is, “yeah, the glory days of the X-Men were great and all… but life is change and we all have to grow up sometime.” He recognizes that it’s not always the reader’s fault that change never comes, or that it comes too rapidly. It is Sublime, in its metaphor for the editorial control, that kills Jean suddenly and ruins everything and it is Sublime that brings Jean back years later to make everything work to its advantage. At the end, Jean makes a conscious decision to allow change to flourish and Scott embraces the new age. But we all know what happens next… the costumes return, the heroics return, and now Jean is returning. Like a Phoenix from the ashes, the old days return once more. Thus, the cycle begins anew, and that is what Morrison was showing us.

Here's a link to the original article:

http://www.comixtreme.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15856&goto=nextnewest

So, what do you guys think about all this?

[twilight]

Nice find Dan.

Very interesting.

[Dan Apodaca]

What do folks think of his explanation for the Chinese prison?

[Gaveedra 6]

What do folks think of his explanation for the Chinese prison?
I thought that part was a little stretched, since we now know that it was never really magneto wearing Xorn's mask (supposedly) and that business about the Chinese prison was never confimed at all.

The other points are really interesting though. Great essay!

[jade_nova]

Interesting insight into how Sublime is like the editors afraid of change.

[Beast]

Agreed, there's a lot of stretching going on there. I read this a long time ago, the last time someone linked it here. Doesn't change my opinion of the run one iota. Morrison's run was fairly good, for the first half. Then stumbled and never recovered during the second half.

[Titan Slade]

Agreed, there's a lot of stretching going on there. I read this a long time ago, the last time someone linked it here. Doesn't change my opinion of the run one iota. Morrison's run was fairly good, for the first half. Then stumbled and never recovered during the second half.

I agree with you Beast. Sounds like somebody is trying to make Morrison out to be smarter than he is. I think Morrison has done great work with DC's characters, but his X-Men run was flat out boring. And the new characters he created for the X-Men are horrid at best.

[Dan Apodaca]

I thought that part was a little stretched, since we now know that it was never really magneto wearing Xorn's mask (supposedly) and that business about the Chinese prison was never confimed at all.

The other points are really interesting though. Great essay!

I disagree. It was Magneto wearing Xorn's mask.

And then Marvel decided to put everything back to before, so they made up a lame excuse to retcon.

[Dan Apodaca]

I agree with you Beast. Sounds like somebody is trying to make Morrison out to be smarter than he is. I think Morrison has done great work with DC's characters, but his X-Men run was flat out boring. And the new characters he created for the X-Men are horrid at best.

Well, I think if you read Morrison's other work, you'll find that this analysis is not out of line to his usual way of thinking. In fact, I bet there's stuff he put in there that we didn't even figure out. We might never catch it.

Also, I'd have to say that the new characters were pretty great. It was nice to finally see some characters at the school instead of walking power sets.

[Dan Apodaca]

Agreed, there's a lot of stretching going on there. I read this a long time ago, the last time someone linked it here. Doesn't change my opinion of the run one iota. Morrison's run was fairly good, for the first half. Then stumbled and never recovered during the second half.

What do you consider to be the halfway marker?

[Dan Apodaca]

This part resonated with me in particular:

In a way, Wolverine represents everything that’s wrong with the X-Men. The X-Men is a book about evolution and change and pacifist ideas and who is their most popular member? A mutant who never ages and, in his own words, “all I’m good for’s killing.”

[The Dosadi Experiment]

with this method of analysing, I can analyse anything and make it sound deep and profound.

Teenage prego bitches in heat part VII

A brilliant deduction of what society considers taboo. As we follow the life of one young female at the mercy of her hormones and obviously pregnant, we see her grow into a sexually independant woman who is able to take matters into her own hands. She represents all of womanhood, supressed by a male-dominated society.

Her first encounter with a man is of his will, he ravishes her, this symbolizes the attitude that men have, to corrupt and force themselves on the most delicate of issues and creatures. They are in control of women and even those yet to be born. His handling of her person is a stunning visual of our twisted society as a suppresive near-tyranical state, in which the female gender has lost the battle. It's obvious that her extasy is faked, she subjects herself to the male, she tries to flee from his aggresive post-coital haze by complimenting him on his actions, as repulsive as society might find them. She shows to the viewer the role of a manipulative but very clever mind, a mind that has been bred by the conditions of living in that male-dominated society. Her soothing compliments and her extasy are nothing more but clever defense mechanisms so she can escape and live to see another day, escape so womanhood can evolve into something more open and more powerful
This first scene also represents the earliest of societies, that of cave-men and women, an interesting thesis that the men in those simply societies reigned supreme, is explored in this scene further, on a different level.

By the second scene she is engaged with two men, we see that she's now taking on a more prominent role in the matter at hand, she is more commanding and demanding, this is of course a deafening blow to maledom, having a pregnant woman, she at the peak of her womanhood and experience, take an active role, demanding that her wishes are fulfilled as well.

etc etc etc

but seriously, it's just porn, made for people with a particular fetish.

[Gaveedra 6]

but seriously, it's just porn, made for people with a particular fetish.

No! It's genius!!

[Dan Apodaca]

with this method of analysing, I can analyse anything and make it sound deep and profound.

Teenage prego bitches in heat part VII

A brilliant deduction of what society considers taboo. As we follow the life of one young female at the mercy of her hormones and obviously pregnant, we see her grow into a sexually independant woman who is able to take matters into her own hands. She represents all of womanhood, supressed by a male-dominated society.

Her first encounter with a man is of his will, he ravishes her, this symbolizes the attitude that men have, to corrupt and force themselves on the most delicate of issues and creatures. They are in control of women and even those yet to be born. His handling of her person is a stunning visual of our twisted society as a suppresive near-tyranical state, in which the female gender has lost the battle. It's obvious that her extasy is faked, she subjects herself to the male, she tries to flee from his aggresive post-coital haze by complimenting him on his actions, as repulsive as society might find them. She shows to the viewer the role of a manipulative but very clever mind, a mind that has been bred by the conditions of living in that male-dominated society. Her soothing compliments and her extasy are nothing more but clever defense mechanisms so she can escape and live to see another day, escape so womanhood can evolve into something more open and more powerful
This first scene also represents the earliest of societies, that of cave-men and women, an interesting thesis that the men in those simply societies reigned supreme, is explored in this scene further, on a different level.

By the second scene she is engaged with two men, we see that she's now taking on a more prominent role in the matter at hand, she is more commanding and demanding, this is of course a deafening blow to maledom, having a pregnant woman, she at the peak of her womanhood and experience, take an active role, demanding that her wishes are fulfilled as well.

etc etc etc

but seriously, it's just porn, made for people with a particular fetish.

Well, there's your lesson, folks. Comics can't ever be literature, because seriously it's just comics. And god forbid anyone should ever try to make good comics, because seriously it's just comics.

Glad to know what you think of us for reading these books.

[DDM]

I think people can overanalyze literature to the point of absurdity. Reading too deeply into the finest scintella of one sentence, paragraph, or work can do just as much damage or miss the point of the story. He has some good ideas, but overall, it sounds like intellectual BS.

[Charagon]

The themes of sexuality are also a very big part of Cyclops and his optic blasts are a phallic symbol.

......................................

Somebody is trying too hard.

[Gaveedra 6]

The themes of sexuality are also a very big part of Cyclops and his optic blasts are a phallic symbol.

......................................

Somebody is trying too hard.
Not really. I thought that was pretty darn obvious on my first reading of the comic. He was so filled with sexual confusion and angst that he couldn't "fire." Silly, yes. But not really a stretch at all.

[ibrakeforchinwe]

That Jean bit makes ALOT of sense.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

The problem I had most with it was that he brought Magneto back as a tool and to be controlled by a lesser character. Doesn't resound me and not something I EVER need to read again.

[jetter_cheeze]

Morrison has dealt with strange themes through most of his work. He is a chaos magician and loves sex. The analysis of his themes ring true to his other work.

Sandman isn't the only piece of great literature that the medium of comic books have to offer.

I'm curious to hear what naysayers to this analysis describe important pieces of literature that aren't overanalyzed. Intellectual BS? Well, what piece of literature deserves its praise?

[Zeta]

The problem I had most with it was that he brought Magneto back as a tool and to be controlled by a lesser character. Doesn't resound me and not something I EVER need to read again.

I think that he was trying to say that Magneto truly is a puppet. Every decade or so Magneto will get some character development and decide to be good, or at least have a cease-fire with the X-men. See the time when he almost killed Kitty.

But sure enough, the editors and often the fans as well will scream "Evil!Magneto was the best! He's too iconic to change like that!" And Magneto will flip out for some convoluted reason and become a terrorist again.

This is despite his nature. Magneto is always written in a sympathetic style, and as a resonable character who CAN be kind and empathetic but is ruled by his fears, traumas, and prejudices. The natural evolution for such a character is to mature into someone who choses the right course despite his past and realizes that he's wrong. But since that's not as marketable or interesting as "Magneto is going to crush the earth with asteroids/reset the poles/crush an office" he's constantly being deviated from the character path he should naturally take. Sublime is the perfect symbol for this.

[Henry T.]

I don't think that Dinopollards analysis of Grant Morrison's New X-Men was "intellectual BS" as most of the themes and undercurrents he mentions are supported by actual events and quotes from the issues themselves. I think a lot of Dinos interpretations are spot on and should be obvious to most learned people.

Anyways there were other themes in New X-Men such as burning away self deception. Apocalypse tore through Scott's self deception about himself and that was mentioned in New 116. Jean's Phoenix powers burned through her self deceptions (all her negative feelings for Scott went away, she had lost concentration in there). Xavier and Jean tore through Animals self deception in the Weapon 12 story. Quentin Quire tore through Slick's self deceptions in New 134. Jean tore through Emma's self deception in New X-Men 139.

Evolution was also a theme with concepts like the extinction gene, mutant baby boom, and secondary mutations. In a way Cassandra was an agent of evolution bringing change to stale mated systems as Xavier noted with her forcing Xavier and the school to be outed as mutants. Jean Grey is also an agent of evolution. Not only does she wield a primordial power but she is also a weapon of cosmic war in human form. It is her nature to burn through what doesn't work and heal what needs to be healed. She is apart of the universe's immune system. Like a white blood cell she is a White Phoenix.

We also had humans trying to evolve themselves by grafting mutant parts (the U-Men) and the government creating human/mutant/machine hybrids in an artifial World, and the future X-Men team comprising members who were human, machine, and mutant. Sublime sought to control creation and evolution through Phoenixes power. New X-Men began with showing the conflict between homosapiens sapiens and homosapiens neanderthalensis. It ended with the threat of unity to the evolutionary system.

There was also the theme of in vs. out and new v.s. old with new ideas like the school being more of a real school, mutant town and mutant culture, and the X-Corps. In the end Xavier and Magneto had to come to terms that their ways were archaic and that the new generation had new and better ideas.

Anyways there have been several articles about Grant Morrison's New X-Men which I think are a testament to the creative and intellectual properties of the run. Even if you are a reductionist and consider all this to be "intellectual BS" at least these types of intellectual insights and inferences can be made with the Morrison run which cannot be said of most of the other X-Men runs.

Other articles....

X-Men, Emerson, Gnosticism.

http://www.reconstruction.ws/043/Klock/Klock.html

This is a huge article so I will post an excerpt..



........
I would like to close with a discussion of Grant Morrison and Chris Bachalo's New X-Men: Assault on Weapon Plus as a Gnostic Post-Human allegory. It should be noted that, unlike a lot of the claims I make about popular culture, this one is actually backed by some source study: Grant Morrison is a man who knows his Gnosticism and takes it as seriously as he takes anything. He has built his masterpiece, The Invisibles (1994-2000), around a Gnostic framework (the villains are actually called Archons) and has made claims suggesting that he takes his fictional universe as more than a mere story. [40]

New X-Men: Assault on Weapon Plus is the journey of Cyclops, Wolverine and Fantomex (a new character introduced in Morrison's New X-Men run) to "The World," a factory-city connected to the Weapon X program. Fantomex describes it as:

a square mile of experimental micro-reality, with its own culture, its own religion, its own history ... a giant petri-dish where the lives of ordinary humans are used up in days, even moments. A torture chamber. They call it the World. [41]

The process that the World uses to create super-soldiers in humanity's fight against mutants is described by one of the faculty's scientists (and serves as a great example of Morrison's prose):

Basically the 'Euthanasium' set-up allows us to fine tune population levels in the World. After splicing human genetic material with Sentinel micro-technology, we're then able to sculpt the resultant strains through high-speed real-time scenarios using artificial evolution technology. Artificial evolution allows us to accelerate nature's own processes to create highly evolved and specialized super-soldiers. [42]

They have created a new kind of super-sentinel, a creature that is a mutant killing machine, and Cyclops, Wolverine, and Fantomex have come to stop it. As an added benefit, Fantomex has promised Wolverine that this is the center of the program that created him, and it contains information on who he was before they turned him into a living weapon and replaced his true memories with false ones in order to to control him.

The interesting thing about Assault on Weapon Plus is that its plot can be summarized to sound like Gnosticism and Emerson (not only because the name of the Weapon Plus base invokes our whole reality): the World is an elaborate prison construct and torture chamber, a place where the powerful -- those that could be heroes -- are broken down into playthings and controlled by a shadowy evil. The hero is the man who sees the World for what it is and, rather than being made, makes himself, and breaks out of its boundaries. Fantomex discovers a note he wrote when he lived there which describes Gnosticism's arc of knowledge in "the World"; he reads aloud, apparently without his accent:

My name is Charlie Cluster 7 ... The World operators tell me I am a living hall of mirrors. I am a stealth fighter. I am a Super-Soldier Generation Thirteen. They say mutant monsters will come to steal the World and kill all my friends. But they shouldn't have made me so smart or I might have believed them.

Cyclops says: "I thought you were French." He responds: "No. I just like the accent. We all find our dignity where we can - mine is in Fantomex.'" [43] The point here is that he is successful in creating himself rather than in being created; he is able to transcend what others tell him he is. Fantomex (see fig. 8) is one of Morrison's perfect creations -- and one of comic books' perfect creations -- because (like the Silver Surfer, for example) he rides a fine line between the hyper-cool and the completely ridiculous: looking like a G. I. Joe figure, Fantomex -- whose name is derived from the French pulp-novel character Phantomas -- is a Matrix-style acrobatic, wise-cracking, double-gun-toting French super-ninja genius with multiple brains for independent processing, whose mutant power is that his nervous system is located outside his body in the form of a sentient, living flying saucer that grew from something he literally coughed up one day. Morrison occasionally hints that Fantomex only appears to have the powers he displays, suggesting at several points (including the line quoted above about being a "living hall of mirrors") that his only powers are illusion and misdirection -- the ability to convince others he is what he says he is. With this height of non-conformist self-creation we should recall the words of Father Irenaeus from the early church complaining about the radically free-thinking Gnostics of his day: "Every day one of them invents something new." [44] Certainly Fantomex has invented himself as something very new. In another clearly Gnostic moment Weapon XV breaks out of "the World" to see if it really is the artificial prison he thinks it is; [45] for the Gnostics, discovering the true nature of the world is the first step toward gnosis. Artificial time and the control of time within the World recall the ancient Gnostic belief that time is a product of the Post-lapsarian fall, the Archons' shoddy attempt to imitate the True God's eternity. The chapter title of Assault on Weapon Plus's first issue, "Brimstone and Whiskey," puts us in the context of a Sermon, and the titles of the follow-up chapters - "The World," "The Flesh," and "The Devil" - each conjure up some Archon control mechanism central to Gnosticism. [46]

.........

[Henry T.]

[Don't mean to double post but this was originally one post but was too long]

For Always, Morrison's X-Men Run

http://home.messiah.edu/~gw1170/

This author also discusses at length about the theme of aggression throughout New X-Men and the commentary on Xavier's and Magneto's dreams.

Another exceprt..


.....

Last week, with the publication of New X-Men #154, writer Grant Morrison finally stated explicitly the overarching point of his three-year run on the series: this fighting, this constant superheroic aggression, is keeping the X-Men from doing what their very premise suggests they should do. It’s keeping them from evolving. And just as the fictional mutants are unable to evolve past their punchups and fisticuffs, so have Marvel's X-Men books been unable to evolve past the formulas created for them by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, and later by Chris Claremont and John Byrne. What Morrison offers in New X-Men is a way to move past these old formulas--a way for the comic book itself to evolve.

.......

What Morrison has attempted with New X-Men is an inoculation. He injected the series with all the old viruses--Magneto, Sentinels, evil twins, dystopian futures, the Phoenix, Weapon X, the Shi'ar Empire--but in altered forms that showed them for the diseases they had become. They worked in the past, but now they keep the X-Men idea from progressing--they keep the mutants locked in an endless series of battles and reworkings of past ideas. Morrison's New X-Men is one last shot of all the old tropes, a chance for the characters and the readers to build antibodies against them so they can't come back. So the X-Men can evolve out of the superhero box they were shoehorned into (given what has been revealed so far of Marvel's post-Morrison plans, there’s only a slim chance of this actually happening). And Morrison's not just talking about the old superhero saws of pacifism vs. violence and should-we-kill? vs. we-shouldn't-kill; he’s talking about the aggression at the very core of superhero comics. Superhero fights started as metaphors, but now they refer only to themselves, and the only progress made is in the level of graphic detail. The idea of the superman, New X-Men tells us, has the potential for much more than just an excuse for earth-shattering wrestling matches. We created the supermen, and there is still more we can learn from them, just as they are capable of more--even something as profound and simple as love.

....


Another article, from Calendar...

http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/11062.html

An exceprt..


.......

Morrison approached the X-Men from the following angle: hey, for the first time in forty years, let's actually use the premise! No longer is the mutant idea just there to allow lazy writers to churn out new superheroes, or to make for a handy reason for characters to feel oppressed; New X-Men is a science fiction series about a world in which a new species is beginning to supplant humankind and, if projections are correct, will completely replace it in four generations. As Morrison has suggested in interviews, there's no need for the mutant idea to be allegorical to be interesting or relevant, not in a world where genetic engineering is no longer a sci-fi fantasy but a growing industry. New X-Men is also about a school — for the first time, Xavier's becomes an actual school, with a faculty made up of several of the 20th-century X-Men, and 152 teenage students who take academic classes along with those on mastering one's powers. They're not future superheroes — some of them are just freaks who happen to have multiple noses, or ultra-long limbs, or transparent skin made of wax. The characters don't wear costumes (except in the India office, where the Bollywood-raised populace loves them). They're not superheroes in the Captain America sense. They're just trying to prevent more genocide in a world that is freaking out about the end of the human race.

Morrison also wrote for a different audience from Lee's or Claremont's. Stan Lee wrote stories for kids with captions that sounded like the patter of a carnival barker and dialogue like a "Gilligan's Island" script. Chris Claremont wrote stories for teenagers with endless captions composed of thick purple prose and excruciatingly mannered dialogue. (If Claremont were writing a typical evening at my house it might go something like: "I am Adam! What, Jennifer, would you like for dinner?" "That, Adam, depends... / ...on what is in the fridge." "Perhaps, my love, I will go to the store and get some groceries, inshallah.") But by the 21st century, neither of these groups was likely to be reading the title. I'm a member of the last age cohort to get into comics as children via spinner racks in convenience stores and the like, and I'm thirty. Today's kids and teens, if they read comics, read manga. American comics are bought by adults. Smart adults — grown-up geeks. So that's who Morrison wrote for.


This means that the dialogue is crisp and, in a first for the X-Men, actually funny. There's no hand-holding in the storytelling; readers are expected to be able to make sense of what they're seeing. And the entire run is organized differently from what had gone before.

......



Another article about the Phoenix which also analyzes Morrison's version of the concept too...

http://p080.ezboard.com/fjeangreyphoenixfansfrm1.showMessage?topicID=2859. topic

An exceprt...



...


Brief Synopsis:A dystopian future,Beast/Sublime (sentient bacteria) and the surviving x-men fight over the Phoenix Egg,Sublime steals it,has the Phoenix exterminate a race of sentient termits;sends her to greet the x-men while he injects himself its genetic material in order to become Sublimphoenix, the x-men succeed in temporarily severing the connection between Phoenix and Jean,Sublime arrives and begins to kill the x-men,Jean phoenixes and carries out a “phoenix disinfection”,the scene moves to the space we’ve seen in classic x-men 43,only with a more sci-fi feel,(and with the M’Krann Crystal floating in the background in one panel).Jean is in White Phoenix costume,she says she had to amputate the entire future,a voice speaks to her from above,we see countless other phoenixes of various races and different color schemes,she reforms the Universe in her hands,rewinds time and creates a new timeline kissing Scott good-bye.

Some quotes:

When Jean exits the Phoenix Egg she says: “I was in the Crown-The White Hot Room”
When she exterminates the Termids she says to bumbleboy,the x-men ambassador,that he’s going to experience “total absorption in the White Hot Room”.He (reduced to a skull kept alive by Phoenix) says that it’s not too bad,it’s like he has done it before or he’s doing it again,or...she replies:”shh.You were always there,waiting for yourself to arrive”.Later Cassandra says that the Phoenix consciousness accedes its host through the “Crown Chakra,at the top of the skull”,and she instruct Martha to interrupt the connection.When Jean extracts Sublime from Hank,she says “accept the Judgement of the Phoenix”.In the “phoenix space” she’s later referenced to as “White Phoenix of the Crown”. There is a lot of talk of “wounded orphan universes” who lost their parents,and the necessity to grow a better future.The mechanical voice in the black balloon says that she has lost concentration,becoming emotionally engaged,and as a result the shock almost killed the patient.It Its “heart got stuck” ,and unless the “heart damage” is repaired the patient will die.She must act quickly to create a new future in substitution of the one she cut away.The voice says that the telekinetic control of all those atoms is not simple,not even for a White Phoenix of the Crown (meaning the control of all the atoms of the Universe,that she reforms and helds in her hands).There are other “heart” references,and the Phoenix Quentin Quire tells her that “If you want it to grow a new future to replace the one you just cut away… you have to water it with your heart’s blood.” He says he would have simply let it die.She looks at the Universe in her hands and she says “Live!” to Scott.


Crown,Judgment,Heart are all kabbalistic keywords.Claremont already used kabbalistic terminology when he mentioned Tiphereth and the Tree of Life.In fact,the Kabbalah is the key to understand both Morrison and Claremont’s interpretation of Phoenix,so I’m afraid I’ll have to spend more than a few words about it.
.........

Keter,The Crown

Keter means crown.It is the crown of creation,because it stays on top of creation without being part of it,as the crown over the head.Keter is the sphere that contains all that was, is,or will be.Keter includes All of Time,unifying All Change, All Time,and All Form in a singularity.It is Nothing and Everything,Beginning and Ending,Alpha and Omega.In it resides the foundation of time,infinite-finite, and light-darkness.It is the First Emanation,the point of absolute Unity without division.It is the Source of All,and the Highest Divine Essence that we can conceive.Every Sephirah is a gate, and Keter is the gate between the Unmanifest and the world being accessible to human consciousness. Regarded as a level of consciousness, Keter represents union with God, the Completion of the Great Work, the end and aim of any mystical experience.To reach Keter is to be disintegrated,a dissolution that does not mean death,but rather union with the Ultimate Reality.
Keter contains in essence and potential all the other spheres;indeed everything exists in Keter in its archetypical form.The colour used to represent it is brilliant white,both to symbolize burning radiance and the union of all colors of the spectrum.

[Titan76]

This is the problem I have with Morrison is that his way of change was really stuip IMO. Yeah lets change the X-men by putting Scott and Emma together(the freakshow) who let me remind you help Mastermind turn Jean into Dark Phoenix. He made Scott be with the woman who try to kill the X-men and is part responable for Jean(the love of his life)killing herself after learning what she had became and done, because of Mastermind and Emma she wanted to die. Yes the X-men could and did gave Emma a chance because she did redeemed herself in Gen X but for Scott to fall for her I don't think is true or right, it seemed really forced. And Jean rep. the past I think is B.S. If you look through Morrison's run it was Jean who had changed and improved the way the X-men handle mutant and human relations and it was her who took over the school when Xavier(really his sister at the time) left and it was her who went on a world tour about bringing peace between humans and mutants in a new way, not Xavier. And when Xavier decided to step down Jean was the one who was to take over both the school and X-Corp. It sound to me more that Jean was more of the future and not the past. She kinda of did the same thing in X-factor which is that she was mainly responable for bringing them together and to bring Xavier's Dream alive in a new and different way. If anything it sounded like Xavier and Magneto rep. the past. When both Xavier and Magneto are both alive what changes happen in the X-men. I mean really. And when Xavier is running the X-men nothing really changes. My proof would be Carlemont's first run on X-men. When Xavier and Magneto where alive and well the X-men were just wanna be super-heros and nothing change. When both left the X-men not only was there change but they change the way they handle mutant and human relations. I mean look at the X-men now to see my proof. So if you ask me it should have been Xavier and Magneto that died not Jean and Magneto. I also don't agree of what he thought of Wolverine meaning that Wolverine shouldn't and didn't belong on the team. Wolverine was one of the main reasons the X-school exist. Wolverine has trouble controling his rage(which is kinda of part of his mutant power) and is a danger to himself and to others which is why the school was found, to help mutants learn to control their powers and live with humans peacefully. He was also a big reason in why Kitty and Jubliee have learn to control their powers and both are very close to Wolverine. So I don't really agree with Morrison on alot of what he thought of the X-men. I did like half of his run which for me was 114 to Roit at Xavier's. Murder at the mansion and everything after that I thought wasn't good at all.

[Alan2099]

Sure symbolism is great and a character standing for something in particular is good and all, but I didn't feel like Morrison actually understood who the characters were supposed to be. he just had certain roles he thought they should fill and altered them to fill spots and stories they had no buisness being in.

[xakko]

This part resonated with me in particular:

Actually, Wolverine has probably undergone more "growth" than anyone else on the team. The brash jerk-psycho who signed on in Giant X-Men #1 is nothing like the man of honor who went to the "Boy from Oz" with Storm.

I think Morrison's issue was that he doesn't see beyond the generalities of the characters. If this whole deconstruction is even half accurate, it doesn't account for the fact that he completely ignored large chunks of growth in characters, especially between Scott and Jean.

Oh, and if people's fundamental personalties are mostly set at an early age, his little "grow up" message, if that's what it is, is unrealistic and pointless.

[Charagon]

If anything, this article pretty much confirms what the #1 complaint about Morrison's run has been. That he didn't write for the characters he was given (and stole) so much as use them to fit the character he had already decided he was going to write.


Change for the sake of change, and that's exactly what this is, is pointless and unnecessary. Further more, it's unnatural and never lasts.

Just look at what has happened since Morrison left. Most of the little things that he changed are gone and most of the big things that changed are on their way out. The X-Men are slowly returning to the state they were in before Morrison came on board. Magneto came back almost instantly. Nobody is even pretending that Jean is gone for good or that Scott and Emma will last. House of M may go a long way to repairing the damage Morrison did to the books by cutting the number of mutants back down to size (Yes, Grant Morrison killed 16 million mutants, out of the hundred million that he added to the world's population) and/or returning the X-Men to their outlaw status.

What Morrison has attempted with New X-Men is an inoculation. He injected the series with all the old viruses--Magneto, Sentinels, evil twins, dystopian futures, the Phoenix, Weapon X, the Shi'ar Empire--but in altered forms that showed them for the diseases they had become.

This is an interesting statement because reality shows that it's Morrison's run itself that's being treated like a virus. It came, it messed everything up, and now it's being expelled. The X-Men will change naturally, when they are ready. Just like they've done for the last 40 years.

What Morrison did was too much too fast. The series was not ready for the things he did and it's now showing.

[Charagon]

Double Post.

Board burped AGAIN!

[DavidQ!]

truly bad I loved morrisons run, but nothing really suprises me in comics anymore.

[Dan Apodaca]

What Morrison did was too much too fast. The series was not ready for the things he did and it's now showing.

If anything, this is a vote of confidence for Morrison's run, and in turn, a driticism of the handling of the X-Men post-Morrison.

"Like the old reader, Jean still longs for those power struggles and to bring things back to the way they were. Which is, in a sense, a bit contradictory given that a book like X-MEN is supposed to be about change and evolution"

[xakko]

If anything, this is a vote of confidence for Morrison's run, and in turn, a driticism of the handling of the X-Men post-Morrison.

"Like the old reader, Jean still longs for those power struggles and to bring things back to the way they were. Which is, in a sense, a bit contradictory given that a book like X-MEN is supposed to be about change and evolution"
Evolution is a slow and gradual process. So the above quote is not a vote of confidence at all.

Morrison's "ugly mutants" is just, underneath it all, a violation of established Marvel continuity for why mutants exist. IIRC, didn't the Celestials modify the human genome to give the potential for such powers? The non-powered mutants that he killed off so cavalierly would not make sense given that as a start point.

As others have mentioned- he didn't write the characters, he wrote his own ideas with the masks of the characters we know and love. That some of us found that disturbing shouldn't be a surprise.

[Dan Apodaca]

Evolution is a slow and gradual process. So the above quote is not a vote of confidence at all.

Morrison's "ugly mutants" is just, underneath it all, a violation of established Marvel continuity for why mutants exist. IIRC, didn't the Celestials modify the human genome to give the potential for such powers? The non-powered mutants that he killed off so cavalierly would not make sense given that as a start point.

As others have mentioned- he didn't write the characters, he wrote his own ideas with the masks of the characters we know and love. That some of us found that disturbing shouldn't be a surprise.

He did write the characters. In fact, he wrote the characters in a much truer fashion than they have been written in a long time. Maybe the characters you know and love aren't the X-Men.

No one wants slow and eventual X-Men comics.

[mattbib]

He did write the characters. In fact, he wrote the characters in a much truer fashion than they have been written in a long time. Maybe the characters you know and love aren't the X-Men.

No one wants slow and eventual X-Men comics.I'm normally not one to get involved in discussions of this sort, but you're way off here, Dan. Morrison's X-Men were definitely not true to the characters we had read for the prior four decades. His Cyclops did not act in a manner that Cyclops would have acted (even WITH the X-Factor crap factored in). His Jean was NOT the Jean that had been established in the prior years. His Emma wasn't even close to the Emma that had appeared in Gen-X. So, to turn your own words against you, maybe you're more a fan of Morrison than you are of the X-Men.

[Dan Apodaca]

I'm normally not one to get involved in discussions of this sort, but you're way off here, Dan. Morrison's X-Men were definitely not true to the characters we had read for the prior four decades. His Cyclops did not act in a manner that Cyclops would have acted (even WITH the X-Factor crap factored in). His Jean was NOT the Jean that had been established in the prior years. His Emma wasn't even close to the Emma that had appeared in Gen-X. So, to turn your own words against you, maybe you're more a fan of Morrison than you are of the X-Men.

I diagree. The Cyclops character is not the good guy boy scout character. Cyclops is the repressed, guilt-ridden, pressure-bound guy who's always inside his head. The boring, goody-two-shoes Cyclops is how lazy, incapable writers portray him. And that's the Cyclops who fans complained about for years because he was so flat and uninteresting.

The Jean in Morrison's run is how Jean should finally be reacting to what's happened to her after all these years. No one who went through what she did would end up the mild-mannered, tolerant mother character. That's just an Oedipus complex wet-dream.

Emma's really the only one that you can make a case for, here. If, in fact, Emma did represent Morrison himself, then she definitely wouldn't be anything like her Gen. X incarnation. Morrison's Emma was a hell of a lot like her Hellfire club version, though.

I was reading X-Men long before I read any Morrison. Granted, there's been a shift, but I came into the run as an X-fan.

[mattbib]

One last retort before bed...
I diagree. The Cyclops character is not the good guy boy scout character. Cyclops is the repressed, guilt-ridden, pressure-bound guy who's always inside his head. The boring, goody-two-shoes Cyclops is how lazy, incapable writers portray him. And that's the Cyclops who fans complained about for years because he was so flat and uninteresting.
Of course I disagree here. Cyclops IS a Boy Scout. Always has been (as far back as X-Men #1), always will. Even with the Maddie stuff factored in that doesn't change. Repressed? Maybe. Pressured? Sure. Guilt-ridden? About what? Scott Summers, in character, would never have left Jean for Emma. Never. And he'd definitely never go to the enemy's camp to drink and watch strippers. We'd already been through this type of story before, and it led only back to his loyalty toward Jean. I find it funny that you don't care to exclude Claremont from your "lazy, incapable" comment, despite the fact that he did write the character for over fifteen years prior to his first leaving the books.The Jean in Morrison's run is how Jean should finally be reacting to what's happened to her after all these years. No one who went through what she did would end up the mild-mannered, tolerant mother character. That's just an Oedipus complex wet-dream.Yet she's one with a cosmic entity. She's beyond such petty emotions. We already saw her personae beat the Phoenix's influence once. Acting matronly and explorational is exactly how I'd expect her to be now that she's again reconnected with it.
Emma's really the only one that you can make a case for, here. If, in fact, Emma did represent Morrison himself, then she definitely wouldn't be anything like her Gen. X incarnation. Morrison's Emma was a hell of a lot like her Hellfire club version, though.Well, yeah, but what kind of cop-out is that? That's a total reversal of every development the character had seen before.

[The Dosadi Experiment]

Well, there's your lesson, folks. Comics can't ever be literature, because seriously it's just comics. And god forbid anyone should ever try to make good comics, because seriously it's just comics.

I never said that, it's impolite to put words into other people's mouths, its also a sign of weakness.

Glad to know what you think of us for reading these books.

You don't know what I think, and that's the whole problem.

I find it tedious that people are going out of their way to fill in voids and to make something seem a thousand times more important than it really is. It's not the act of over-analysing and pouring into a work things that might not even be there, it's the fact that it always happens with extreme prejudice and extreme discrimination.

DinoPollard, I knew the lad, I also know that he throroughly hated Claremont's work on X-treme X-men.

This analysis of Morrison's work will be accepted by people who think like DinoPollard that Morrison was the next best thing to come to the X-men since the invention of paper and ink.

But this group will systematically deny a similair analysis of an author or creator that they despise.

I once wrote an analysis on Claremont's recent arc involving Rachel transforming into a dinosaur. About how he explored the theme of superficial societies pressing an image onto an individual, which will live to fullfill that image, they are seeking out ways to become a reflection of the image of perfection, or even a moderately acceptable image of being in line with the standards society has set.

Rachel transforming into an evolved dinosaur was a comment on how society at large pushes certain standards onto the young, who will live up to that image on a subconscious level.

This theme was of course further explored with Psylocke and X-23, who did it on a very conscious level.

The storyarc became a cautionary tale of the dangers that mimicry brings along, but also the advantages, as mimicry leads to feeling adequate, a valued member of the group, you are succesful up to a certain level in achieving the image of perfection through mimicry.

Mimicry of course tying back to our earliest experiences as babes in a crib. Mimicry is how we learn to be human in the first place. Mimicry is an important part of creating a culture and a social sense of self.

Rachel's transformation shows us the underlying views on what individuality is, where it starts and where it ends. The question is raised: where begins the "I" and where begins the "We"?


The only reason people would reject this theory and accept the other, is because of their like or dislike of the public figure associated with the product that is being analysed.

And that is what I find utterly bothersome in these types of discussions.

[Jake V]

I find it tedious that people are going out of their way to fill in voids and to make something seem a thousand times more important than it really is. It's not the act of over-analysing and pouring into a work things that might not even be there, it's the fact that it always happens with extreme prejudice and extreme discrimination.

DinoPollard, I knew the lad, I also know that he throroughly hated Claremont's work on X-treme X-men.

This analysis of Morrison's work will be accepted by people who think like DinoPollard that Morrison was the next best thing to come to the X-men since the invention of paper and ink.

But this group will systematically deny a similair analysis of an author or creator that they despise.

I once wrote an analysis on Claremont's recent arc involving Rachel transforming into a dinosaur. About how he explored the theme of superficial societies pressing an image onto an individual, which will live to fullfill that image, they are seeking out ways to become a reflection of the image of perfection, or even a moderately acceptable image of being in line with the standards society has set.

Rachel transforming into an evolved dinosaur was a comment on how society at large pushes certain standards onto the young, who will live up to that image on a subconscious level.

This theme was of course further explored with Psylocke and X-23, who did it on a very conscious level.

The storyarc became a cautionary tale of the dangers that mimicry brings along, but also the advantages, as mimicry leads to feeling adequate, a valued member of the group, you are succesful up to a certain level in achieving the image of perfection through mimicry.

Mimicry of course tying back to our earliest experiences as babes in a crib. Mimicry is how we learn to be human in the first place. Mimicry is an important part of creating a culture and a social sense of self.

Rachel's transformation shows us the underlying views on what individuality is, where it starts and where it ends. The question is raised: where begins the "I" and where begins the "We"?


The only reason people would reject this theory and accept the other, is because of their like or dislike of the public figure associated with the product that is being analysed.

And that is what I find utterly bothersome in these types of discussions.
But doesn't your distain for Morrison's run or perhaps Morrison as a creator color your ability to accept such an analysis of his run the same way someone who disliked Claremont as a whole wouldn't be able to accept your analysis of the Rachel story? If dinopollard's analysis is somehow invalidated because he has a pro-morrison agenda, shouldn't your Uncanny analysis also be invalidated due to your pro-claremont agenda? (and don't act like you don't have one. We've all seen the thread you started that made the fanboy rampage.)

What if your analysis of Uncanny and DinoPollard's analysis of NXM were BOTH true? What if they both had real literary value? Wouldn't that be something? Shouldn't that be a possibility?

[Dan Apodaca]

One last retort before bed...

Of course I disagree here. Cyclops IS a Boy Scout. Always has been (as far back as X-Men #1), always will. Even with the Maddie stuff factored in that doesn't change. Repressed? Maybe. Pressured? Sure. Guilt-ridden? About what? Scott Summers, in character, would never have left Jean for Emma. Never. And he'd definitely never go to the enemy's camp to drink and watch strippers. We'd already been through this type of story before, and it led only back to his loyalty toward Jean. I find it funny that you don't care to exclude Claremont from your "lazy, incapable" comment, despite the fact that he did write the character for over fifteen years prior to his first leaving the books.Yet she's one with a cosmic entity. She's beyond such petty emotions. We already saw her personae beat the Phoenix's influence once. Acting matronly and explorational is exactly how I'd expect her to be now that she's again reconnected with it.
Well, yeah, but what kind of cop-out is that? That's a total reversal of every development the character had seen before.

I think you have Cyclops confused with Captain America. He's guilt-ridden because he puts so much pressure on himself that any minor flaw equals major self-punishment. Scott has to be allowed to mess up (by the writers), or there's no reason for him to be so concerned with his own performance. After all, if he's perfect, why worry? Look at where he was when Morrison's run started. He had just been brought back from the dead, after sacrificing himself in battle (a sacrifice which, I might add, went just about unrecognized outside of his immeidate family). His wife had become something way beyond the girl he originally fell in love with, and left him feeling incompetent and incapable in comparison. He was feeling messed up, and he had to do some things that he hadn't normally done, in order to find out what he wanted with his life.

The Phoenix entity is exactly why Jean would NEVER be "beyond" emotions. If we follow the explanation as to Jean's non-death, then the reason for the Phoenix's replication of her body was because it was jealous of the life she had. If the cosmic entity can experience jealousy, then it can surely experience plenty of other emotions. I agree that it's in character for Jean to act explorational, but...um, that's what Morrison had her do.

I didn't exclude Claremont because I didn't exclude anybody by name. You know how I feel about Claremont's abilities as a writer, Matt. And I can say that length of time writing a character doesn't indicate any sort of knowledge of said character, unfortunately. The point is that I was making a general comment as to a common misinterpretation of Cyke's character. It had nothing to do with any writer in particular.

But what if the previous character development was bad? Look at Batman Begins. That movie succeeded because it ignored everything about the Schumacher Batman movies. It also ignored the Batman TV show from the sixties. Does this mean that it was a less valid interpretation of the character? Nope. Because those ones were way wrong. And Begins was way right.

[The Dosadi Experiment]

But doesn't your distain for Morrison's run or perhaps Morrison as a creator color your ability to accept such an analysis of his run the same way someone who disliked Claremont as a whole wouldn't be able to accept your analysis of the Rachel story? If dinopollard's analysis is somehow invalidated because he has a pro-morrison agenda, shouldn't your Uncanny analysis also be invalidated due to your pro-claremont agenda? (and don't act like you don't have one. We've all seen the thread you started that made the fanboy rampage.)

I actually liked Morrison's run in part. But I'm not going to pretend that it is the be all end all of the X-titles like many of his fans did and still do. It was a fun ride, but far from flawless.

I don't really have a pro-Claremont agenda, you obviously didn't read the original thread thoroughly enough. I have an anti-editorial agenda, or even an anti-Quesada agenda. Claremont was used solely as an example.

I hated the On Ice storyline, and I mean I really didn't care for it at all. My analysis of the thing was more something in jest, to prove that you can do the same thing people do to Grant Morisson's stories, to any other random story.

What if your analysis of Uncanny and DinoPollard's analysis of NXM were BOTH true? What if they both had real literary value? Wouldn't that be something? Shouldn't that be a possibility?

I think that should be possible, the problem is, as it stands now only one of the two is generally accepted, while the other is dismissed with great ease. So in this current climate of snobism and elitism, it's not at all possible.

Maybe in ten years from now.

[Dan Apodaca]

I never said that, it's impolite to put words into other people's mouths, its also a sign of weakness.

You don't know what I think, and that's the whole problem.

No, that's not the whole problem. This thread was never about what you think about dinopollard. You posted a rude and dismissive comment in the thread. That's the whole problem.

I don't see how an analysis is somehow less valid because the analyst in question in a fan of the work.

[Dan Apodaca]

I think that should be possible, the problem is, as it stands now only one of the two is generally accepted, while the other is dismissed with great ease. So in this current climate of snobism and elitism, it's not at all possible.

Maybe in ten years from now.

It's funny you would say this, because X-Fans who enjoyed Morrison's run are in the minority.

[grendel824]

Sorry, but Morrison nailed the characters pretty well. He added something to them occasionally, which I suspect is the source of most peoples' beefs with what he did, but he didnt' do anything that made me say "wait a minute, they'd NEVER act this way, given the circumstances."

That said, I think Morrison works best with ciphers rather than icons (though he's made exceptions to that, like JLA and (hopefully) All-Star Superman.

[Jake V]

I think that should be possible, the problem is, as it stands now only one of the two is generally accepted, while the other is dismissed with great ease. So in this current climate of snobism and elitism, it's not at all possible.

Maybe in ten years from now.
Obviously yeah, their reputations color people's perceptions of the literary value of their work. You seem to be resistant to the idea that Morrison's work merits such an in-depth analysis purely based on the fact that more people believe it to be so than those who believe that Claremon't work merits the same interpretation. This sounds as though you're being overly defensive of Claremont's work and thus, hostile to his closest competitor. Though their might be a climate of snobism and eletism, can't you seperate yourself from it and view the work as simply the work and not the hysteria that surrounds it? Why does it matter what other people think?

I may not be that big a fan of Claremont's style of dialogue, but I've met the man, I've spoken to him on two occasions and I can say he's a smart guy. A literary guy. I think his work definately merits some sort of of serious analysis. I've also met Grant Morrison, and from the time I've spoken to him, I find him to be just as intelligent and well-read as Claremont. Having read previous works by him that had CLEAR layers of subtext and hidden meanings, I can say that it is likely that the "hidden meanings" and subtext that was pulled from his X-Men run is on the money.

What I'm getting at is that I just don't understand why they can't BOTH be good. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why do Morrison fans and Claremont fans need to be diametrically opposed?

[Twigglet]

It's funny you would say this, because X-Fans who enjoyed Morrison's run are in the minority.

I wouldn't say that at all, apart form this board and ComiX-fan most people I've spoke to love Morrisons work, that's why it sold so well.

[pauwoo]

I read through the article, as interesting as it was was, it doesn't change my opinion of his run, I didn't like it, he is still the only person who has made me stop reading an x-title.

[The Dosadi Experiment]

No, that's not the whole problem. This thread was never about what you think about dinopollard. You posted a rude and dismissive comment in the thread. That's the whole problem.

What was rude about it? That DinoPollard has made statements from which it became clear he hated, loathed, abhored, damn near everything Claremont has produced during his tenure on X-treme X-men? Or that he found Morrison's run to be the definative run on X-men while it was still in progress?

Is it rude to mention that someone is biased? If so, you and others in this thread have been equally rude towards me. Why would that be different, why not comment on that?

I don't see how an analysis is somehow less valid because the analyst in question in a fan of the work.

I do, it's like asking Stalin to give an analysis on Capitalism, or for Cruise to analyse Scientology.

Bias.

The source is biased, and due to that bias and personal preferences, I question the validity of the article.

The post you replied to initiatally was my analysis of "Teenage prego bitches in heat part VII" which served as an example that one can make everything sound deep and meaningful and spiritual and whatnot in retrospect. Pouring into a product more than there might actually be.

You replied by saying: "Well, there's your lesson, folks. Comics can't ever be literature, because seriously it's just comics. And god forbid anyone should ever try to make good comics, because seriously it's just comics."

Drawing a conclusion and presenting it as fact, twisting my words to fit your opinion. Your choice of words also suggests that you did it in a mocking manner, the usage of the word "Lesson" in that particular context supports this theory. This is often used to undermine the message that was inititially made, you never replied to the actual content of the message, you merely attacked the form.

and then "Glad to know what you think of us for reading these books."

You again seem to present your personal view, of what my private thoughts are, as the only correct one. You interpret my words, and then present them as fact, even when I never actually said the things you accused me of saying. This might be considered slander, or even libel, depending on how you see a forum on the internet.

[The Dosadi Experiment]

Obviously yeah, their reputations color people's perceptions of the literary value of their work. You seem to be resistant to the idea that Morrison's work merits such an in-depth analysis purely based on the fact that more people believe it to be so than those who believe that Claremon't work merits the same interpretation.

I am resistant because of a number of reasons. One of them being that people only do it for Morrison but exclude other writers, acting as if he is the only one worthy enough to be analysed in such a manner.
Another reason is because I find the whole thing pretentious, over-analysis is easy, but does it make it more true, or more valuable?

This sounds as though you're being overly defensive of Claremont's work and thus, hostile to his closest competitor.

Wrong, Claremont's work was only used to serve as an example. I could have used another name, but it has proven to be more potent in such discussions to drop Claremont's name. Also taking in mind the dislike of the writer of the original analysis, it served as just the perfect example. But the name Claremont could easily be changed into Austen, and his work could be analysed in an equal fashion.

Also the first reply I made involved the fictional cinematic work of "Teenage prego bitches in heat part VII" to bring you a similair message, people didn't react in a manner that equalled using Claremont.

The only thing this shows is not my love for Claremont's work, but the hatred others have for it. As his name guarantees a more vocal response then a fictional example, or an example that falls outside the genre and medium.

Though their might be a climate of snobism and eletism, can't you seperate yourself from it and view the work as simply the work and not the hysteria that surrounds it? Why does it matter what other people think?

The "work" and I suppose you mean the analysis in the first post of this thread, is a product of just that hysteria surrounding the issue at hand. Í'm commenting not on the material that was the basis for the analysis, I'm commenting on the analysis itself.

If I seperated myself from the snobism and elitism, people would still view me in a hostile light, as it becomes clear that in such cases that if there isn't lofty praise people will seemingly view you as giving a condemnation.


What I'm getting at is that I just don't understand why they can't BOTH be good. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why do Morrison fans and Claremont fans need to be diametrically opposed?

I like both, X-treme and New X-men complimented eachother perfectly in my eyes.

Why they need to be diametrically opposed? Because they can't accept anything other than one absolute truth.

[atoningunifex]

Scott Summers, in character, would never have left Jean for Emma. Never.

Scott Summers left his wife and child to run to Jean.

But more than that-Scott DIDN'T leave Jean for Emma. He probably wanted to. He was certainly attracted to Emma. Emma was certainly far more avaialable to him than Jean was at the time. But he never quite chose between the two of them.

Scott and Jean's marriage was having abit of a rough patch. Scott's coming off the bizarre Apocalypse thing. Jean's taking more responsibility at the school and thinking about more than their relationship. And Scott, the guy who once left the pressure of being husband and father in a heartbeat to run to his ex-girlfriend, succumbed to the temptation of a bit of psychic-naughty with Emma.

Jean re-acted to this badly. Scott, instead of dealing with the problem, bailed. But he never chose Emma over Jean. Even during Planet X he still hadn't really made up his mind. And when he did make his mind up Jean died. And he was ready to leave.

Until Jean changed his mind.

It isn't as simple as "Scott left Jean for Emma." It's more along the lines of "Jean left Scott to Emma."

[Titan76]

Scott Summers left his wife and child to run to Jean.

But more than that-Scott DIDN'T leave Jean for Emma. He probably wanted to. He was certainly attracted to Emma. Emma was certainly far more avaialable to him than Jean was at the time. But he never quite chose between the two of them.

Scott and Jean's marriage was having abit of a rough patch. Scott's coming off the bizarre Apocalypse thing. Jean's taking more responsibility at the school and thinking about more than their relationship. And Scott, the guy who once left the pressure of being husband and father in a heartbeat to run to his ex-girlfriend, succumbed to the temptation of a bit of psychic-naughty with Emma.

Jean re-acted to this badly. Scott, instead of dealing with the problem, bailed. But he never chose Emma over Jean. Even during Planet X he still hadn't really made up his mind. And when he did make his mind up Jean died. And he was ready to leave.

Until Jean changed his mind.

It isn't as simple as "Scott left Jean for Emma." It's more along the lines of "Jean left Scott to Emma."

Which to me was a way to force them together. I know Scott's nature very well, I have read uncanny 150 to now, X-men 1 to now and all the old issues of X-factor. For Morrsion to say that Jean wanted Scott to be with Emma so that they could save the world from becoming a hell hole is really stuip IMO. Why didn't Jean just come back to the past and to Scott to stop that future from existing instead of putting him with Emma? Jean has already been in the white hot room before and we are told why she had to go back again but why did she have to stay? And for Jean not to talk to Scott about the problems he was having I think was out of chatacter. Jean was the one Scott would always talk to about his problems and at times yes Jean would comfront Scott about his problems because he had a thing about running away from his problems. Yes Jean did have more responsibility at the school but Scott just went through a major crisis(which was really not explain at all) but Jean has had too(dark phoenix anyone), so its not like she couldn't relate to him in anyway and Jean has always been the person to talk to about someone else's problems which is why all the X-men love her because she is the one person they all love and trust the most, IMO. To me it was like this, Morrsion wanted to change the X-men in a big way and kinda wanted to put some shock power into it, so he would write that Jean and Scott are having problems that they couldn't work out(like they have never had major problems before and work out) so he had Scott hook up with Emma(who he said he wanted to make a big A-listed person) and to somehow explain why Scott would hook up with Emma(which he shouldn't have, I explain why already in this thread) he wrote if he didn't earth would be come a hell hole and so they must be put together. Give me a break. If he wanted to break up Scott and Jean fine I wouldn't have had that much of a problem with it, but to break them up and then kill Jean and then put him with Emma and have them make out on Jean's grave is one of the most stuipest things I have every heard of, IMO.

[Alan2099]

If he wanted to break up Scott and Jean fine I wouldn't have had that much of a problem with it, but to break them up and then kill Jean and then put him with Emma and have them make out on Jean's grave is one of the most stuipest things I have every heard of, IMO.
You left out the part about horribly rolling back Emma's character and getting rid of all the growth she's been though.

[PhoenixBoyX]

I, when I first started reading comics again (circa Astonishing X-Men 3 or 4) began trying to read up on everything I'd missed since Claremont began Revolution, which had been the last thing I'd read. Morrison's run was one huge undertaking.

I knew I'd eventually want the individual issues, as I am a completist, but I settled for trades until I had the financial standings to do so, and have since do so and given my trades to my best friend. So I pretty much read the whole run an arc per week. And have since gone back and reread it a few times. The main problem with Morrison's run is the same problem with EVERY run since Claremont initially left: the only constant in X-Men is returning to the same formula Claremont initially put on the books.

Back when CC was the only writer, what he did was pretty much the only X-Book. Very few things affected continuity outside of him between issue 94-the beginning of X-Factor. Now, however, there are a multitude of other books, all with other writers, all with their own agenda. I mean, natural progression of things is to change and evolve, but due to the way comics work, the changes always seem to eventually go back to the basics. If we look at the rosters right now, how many characters on any of the three major books (AXM, UXM, XM) were created less than 10 years ago? 15 years ago?

Back when there were three X-books, two of them helmed by Claremont, say around the time of the Mutant Massacre, you could do something like that. The Morlocks have been dead a good long while now, and it's something that has stuck, and it even wound up giving us Marrow. But even then, the Mutant Massacre wound up giving us Archangel (well, the fallout from that did) and look at him now. Not blue, and certainly not metal winged any longer. Morrison had this notion of changing the X-Men forever, which is rather self-important, but I do believe he's left his mark. I mean, Fatal Attractions was supposed to change the X-Men forever, but now, Wolverine has his metal back, Magneto came back, Colossus stopped being evil, the Acolytes aren't stationed on Avalon anymore, etc etc etc.

As a side note: While I have my conflicting thoughts on Morrison's run (the beautiful transformation Jean underwent was amazing, but some of his students, and Planet X ((although I understand Jean had to die to come full circle)) were in my opinion, crap), one concept still will always remain the same: Symbolism can be anything to anyone. That was something every english teacher I have ever had has told me. If you can find support for it, as long as it makes sense to you, it works. Might be intellectual BS, but if it's intellectual BS that makes sense to you, that you feel you can support, go for it! Scott's optic blasts being a phallic concept is something I've often made a joke of with people, LONG before Morrison's run, and in Morrison's run, they give you sufficient evidence for it. Now, if you were to say Scott's optic beam is symbolic of the choices you have on a Chinese food resturant menu, I'd be hardpressed to agree, although, if you could support it, you could definately take the angle and I'd LOVE to listen. When I read the article I said "Wow, some good ideas here. Don't agree with ALL of them, or even the idea that PlanetXorneto was actually Magneto, but hey, it's an interesting spin on a concept I wasn't too keen on." I also liked Chad's view on how Jean couldn't rely on the men in her life, which is very "Where Have All the Cowboy's Gone" by Paula Cole, which if you listen to track one on that album "Tigerlily", is kinda Jean, not to mention the album is called "This Fire", and there are lyrics like "And it's me who is my enemy" and a song called "Throwing Stones" which could be used as a metaphor for Scott and Jean's descinigrating relationship. See how easy it is for symbolism to get out of hand. It makes perfect sense to me, just probably not to others.
-Nick

[Dino Pollard]

A friend of mine pointed me to this thread, so I thought I might as well comment.

First off, I have to thank Dan for posting the link to my article so the people at CBR can discuss it. It's nice to know that people are still reading and discussing my article even after all this time, and even after Morrison's run is long over. It's always nice to know people are still reading my work.

Second, thank you to everyone who read and commented on the article. Especially those who provided added insight into Morrison's work -- such as the poster who made the comment about the men in Jean's life failing her (I hadn't noticed that during my readings of Morrison's run).

Third, in response to the naysayers, and in particular, The Dosadi Experiment. Don't pass judgement on the article simply because it was written by a fan of Morrison's work. Because, truth be told, I wasn't a fan of Morrison until he started writing NEW X-MEN. I had read a few issues of JLA, but that was it. I wasn't a Morrison fan who started reading NEW X-MEN because of him. I was an X-Men fan, first and foremost, and one who had become increasingly disappointed with the X-Men titles over the years prior to Morrison. However, I was young at the time and working in a comic store, so I just kept on reading. By the time Morrison started writing NEW X-MEN, I had already left my job at the comic shop, and was contemplating dropping the titles unless something sparked my interest. That something was Grant Morrison.

These aren't the words of a Morrison fan making excuses for his X-Men work -- these are the words of an X-Men fan telling you why Morrison made him excited about the X-Men once again. I'm no apologist for Morrison's X-Men, mainly because I feel there's nothing to apologize for. I'm simply telling you the things which I noticed when reading his run, the things which made me a fan of it.

I do believe there is a lot within the run that many people gloss over simply because Morrison's style of writing is very different for the X-Men. I don't care how much you hate Morrison, it doesn't change the fact that yes, he writes in a way longtime X-Men readers just aren't familiar with in X-Men comics.

Many times with the X-Men, especially since the departure of Claremont in the early 90s, we were left to simply take things at face-value. During the 90s, the X-Men became synonymous with stagnation, when it was once one of the most cutting edge books on the market. Many times, discussions about the X-Men resembled discussions about soap operas -- who will end up with whom, who is manipulating events, what is this character's dark secret, etc. Now, after Morrison's run, I'm seeing discussions such as these -- where people are discussing things like subtext and symbolism. In my experience, that's very rare for X-Men comics. Not only that, but Morrison's run is quickly becoming one of the most talked-about runs in comicdom. The Dosadi Experiment even talked about analyzing Claremont's work -- I say bring it on. If people start looking beyond the surface of the work and start analyzing that, I can't possibly see it as being a bad thing.

I don't believe there's such a thing as "overanalyzing" an author's work. But then again, I'm a student of literature and film, so "overanalyzing" is what I do. Most of the time, an analysis is simply a fancy way of someone saying, "this is my interpretation."

But I do want to address the idea that my article is somehow invalidated simply because I'm a fan of the work in question. Where did you get that from? In the world of literature, people frequently analyze the works they themselves are very passionate about. So what's the reverse then? Get someone who hates the work to analyze it? That's not going to yield any sort of positive results, just a negative critique. Then what? Get someone to analyze it who has a neutral opinion of it? My god, wouldn't that be boring.

This isn't a science experiment, you don't need an impartial observation. Because when it comes to fiction, there's no such thing as impartial. Everyone has an opinion whenever they read a piece of fiction. The fact that someone likes a piece of fiction they're analyzing doesn't make the analysis any less relevant. If that were the case, then about 95% of literature analyses would be invalid.

[streator]

A friend of mine pointed me to this thread, so I thought I might as well comment.

First off, I have to thank Dan for posting the link to my article so the people at CBR can discuss it. It's nice to know that people are still reading and discussing my article even after all this time, and even after Morrison's run is long over. It's always nice to know people are still reading my work.

Second, thank you to everyone who read and commented on the article. Especially those who provided added insight into Morrison's work -- such as the poster who made the comment about the men in Jean's life failing her (I hadn't noticed that during my readings of Morrison's run).

Third, in response to the naysayers, and in particular, The Dosadi Experiment. Don't pass judgement on the article simply because it was written by a fan of Morrison's work. Because, truth be told, I wasn't a fan of Morrison until he started writing NEW X-MEN. I had read a few issues of JLA, but that was it. I wasn't a Morrison fan who started reading NEW X-MEN because of him. I was an X-Men fan, first and foremost, and one who had become increasingly disappointed with the X-Men titles over the years prior to Morrison. However, I was young at the time and working in a comic store, so I just kept on reading. By the time Morrison started writing NEW X-MEN, I had already left my job at the comic shop, and was contemplating dropping the titles unless something sparked my interest. That something was Grant Morrison.

These aren't the words of a Morrison fan making excuses for his X-Men work -- these are the words of an X-Men fan telling you why Morrison made him excited about the X-Men once again. I'm no apologist for Morrison's X-Men, mainly because I feel there's nothing to apologize for. I'm simply telling you the things which I noticed when reading his run, the things which made me a fan of it.

I do believe there is a lot within the run that many people gloss over simply because Morrison's style of writing is very different for the X-Men. I don't care how much you hate Morrison, it doesn't change the fact that yes, he writes in a way longtime X-Men readers just aren't familiar with in X-Men comics.

Many times with the X-Men, especially since the departure of Claremont in the early 90s, we were left to simply take things at face-value. During the 90s, the X-Men became synonymous with stagnation, when it was once one of the most cutting edge books on the market. Many times, discussions about the X-Men resembled discussions about soap operas -- who will end up with whom, who is manipulating events, what is this character's dark secret, etc. Now, after Morrison's run, I'm seeing discussions such as these -- where people are discussing things like subtext and symbolism. In my experience, that's very rare for X-Men comics. Not only that, but Morrison's run is quickly becoming one of the most talked-about runs in comicdom. The Dosadi Experiment even talked about analyzing Claremont's work -- I say bring it on. If people start looking beyond the surface of the work and start analyzing that, I can't possibly see it as being a bad thing.

I don't believe there's such a thing as "overanalyzing" an author's work. But then again, I'm a student of literature and film, so "overanalyzing" is what I do. Most of the time, an analysis is simply a fancy way of someone saying, "this is my interpretation."

But I do want to address the idea that my article is somehow invalidated simply because I'm a fan of the work in question. Where did you get that from? In the world of literature, people frequently analyze the works they themselves are very passionate about. So what's the reverse then? Get someone who hates the work to analyze it? That's not going to yield any sort of positive results, just a negative critique. Then what? Get someone to analyze it who has a neutral opinion of it? My god, wouldn't that be boring.

This isn't a science experiment, you don't need an impartial observation. Because when it comes to fiction, there's no such thing as impartial. Everyone has an opinion whenever they read a piece of fiction. The fact that someone likes a piece of fiction they're analyzing doesn't make the analysis any less relevant. If that were the case, then about 95% of literature analyses would be invalid.
well put, especially "these are the words of an X-Men fan telling you why Morrison made him excited about the X-Men once again". that was the way i felt as well.

[Henry T.]

Dosadi the problem with your analogy to your analysis of Rachel turning into a Dino is that it is exactly what you were accusing Dinopollard of in his analysis-- over analyzing and making stretched analogous comparison's to other meanings basically. However for the most part Dinopollard did not do that.

Therein lies the difference. Dinopollard pointed to continuous themes/characterization that were apparent throughout New X-Men and that were obviously intentional by the writer. There were obvious social commentaries in Morrison's New X-Men as well as continuous themes.

I don't think Claremont meant for his Dino-Rachel story to be a commentary on the pressures of youth nor do I think that the story makes such comments. I also don't think that you provided believeable evidence from the comics (events and quotes) to support this. In fact I think trying to intellectual that story is quite laughable. I don't think its anywhere near comparable to Morrison's work on New X-Men.

Anyways even though all this is art and quite subjective, there is always a certain amount of agreement reality when it comes to analysis and interpretation of art forms. Dino's analysis isn't the only analysis to point out the continuous themes and subtexts within New X-Men. I posted links and excerpts from two other articles that did in depth analysis of Morrison's run. I also posted links and excerpts from two other articles that discussed the substexts found in his Weapon Plus and the World story and his version of the Phoenix. Did you read these full articles? Can you do a systematic rebuttal of each of these? I'm sure you can find some of the overanalyzing in some of these articles but for the most part I think they are right about many of the subtexts and themes.

Sure there have been many fans who have not liked Morrison's New X-Men, mostly because he changed some things in daring and dynamic ways. I think a lot of fans actually like the X-Men being static and stagnant without meaningful changes or progressions. But many fans also loved the run and there have been others on various message boards that have pointed out these themes.

Many of us noticed the Gnostic and Quballah themes right away in New X-Men. However at the times the issues were coming out, many of us also experienced a lot of hostility from other fans who told us that we were making it all up or reading too much into it. I know for me, some of the posters on another board pretty much told me that I was stupid for noticing these things. Yet in one of Morrison's last interviews about New X-Men he actually mentioned both Gnosticism and Quballah and how he uses some of these concepts in his works. You couldn't imagine how vindicated I felt. We really aren't making a lot of his stuff up. Its really there.

Also while I believe that someone could do similar in depth intellectual and creative analysis for themes and subtexts that are actually there for some of Claremont's early work (he did use Quballah and Hindu themes in his original and Classic x-men Phoenix stories for example, refer to Phoenix article I posted earlier) I don't think you could do so to any credible extent to his recent work or even since some of his early classics. I don't think you could do so with most of the other X-Men runs either. Personally and this statement is all opinion-- I really think that Morrison's run was the most creative and intelligent run in X-Men history.

I've seen others challenge people to write intellectual analysis of Claremont's recent works on other boards as well. I've yet to see it done. Personally I don't see how it can be done but in this case I would welcome being proved wrong.

I would also like to see someone systematically try to refute everything in Dino's article And the other articles I linked to using evidences (events and quotes) from the actual issues themselves.

So far in this thread most people are just replying and saying that its overanalysis or just saying that they didn't like Morrison's run. Most but not all are not actually trying to refute what was said in the articles though.

Anyways to change gears...

How were the characters not themselves?

For example Jean: Jean was still compassionate. She wanted to try and find another way than to fight at first. We saw her cry when Beak was hurt and when Beast and Charles were hurt. We saw her protect children. Jean still had her fiery temperment. We saw her unleash on the U-Men and Emma Frost. She was still bold as we saw her stand up to Xavier, Cassandra, the Imperial Guard, Sublime, etc. She still had her vulnerabilities as she was nervous before the U-Men attack and before giving her speech and was upset about her marriage falling apart at least until the Phoenix burned those feelings away. She was still a responsible person as she gave the mutant press conference, was the acting headmistress, and one of the founders of the X-Corps. She still had her deep friendship and underlying passion with Logan as seen in New 148 and New 117. She still loved Scott even though she had to let him go. Jean still had her Phoenix powers and had issues with the rushes. Jean was still protective of Xavier. Morrison's Jean was more reserved like she had been in the 90s but she did wear an edgy costume in HCT.

True Morrison's Jean was not as lively and outgoing as some versions of her has been. But New X-Men had a darker tone than most of the other runs. Though we did see glimpses of this aspect of Jean when she joked around with Beast in 114. Morrison's Jean was strong and confident. She was a force to be reckoned with. Sure she was not pigeon holed as the denmother but she wasn't a denmother during the original Phoenix sagas or most of X-Factor either. Morrison also made Jean more of a peer to Xavier than a pupil. Even though he added a more serene element to her and focused some on her cosmic destiny she wasn't perfect and was still very human. She really smacked down on the U-Men-- making them defecate and puke on themeselves and stripping them naked. She also ravaged Emma's mind and made her relive traumatic moments in her past. And she lied about letting Fantomex go.

Morrison did play up the differences between Jean and Emma though and he did portray Emma as being more sympathetic. Though I think we did feel for Jean at the end.

The great thing about Morrison's X-Men were that none of them were perfect. Thats how it is in real life. We are not absolute moralistic all the time. Some of us may stand up for certain moral and social ideals but we all slip from time to time.

[Henry T.]

[post continues]

About Scott and Jean...

To me their time was up. They seemed to be more interesting characters when they were not fully together or when they had tension between them (original X-Men, Phoenix years, X-Factor, Revolution, New X-Men). They had become a boring couple and too many times they were identified as a couple and not as individual characters. Fans use to complain about the dreaded "Scott/Jean identity". It seems to me that their identity as a boring couple hurt them as individual characters. Thats not to say that they couldn't be written as an interesting couple and still be cool individuals. If they had chosen to leave Jean the way she was in Revolution and Scott the way he was after Search for Cyclops they probably could have made a cool team.

However, I am glad that they are split up. It allows for more change and progression imo. Anyways I think New X-Men also served as a sweet yet disfunctional love story between Emma and Scott.

Several forces broke up Scott and Jean. First was Scott having been possessed by Apocalypse. This tore through Scott's deceptions about himself and allowed him to see some of the darker corners of his soul. Secondly in his confusion Scott chose to be celibate. So he witheld physical intimacy from Jean for five months. He had changed and he didn't know how to cope and he didn't think he could tell Jean about it because he was afraid she would trivialize it because shes been through it and shrugged it off. Jean was basically insulted that he just wanted her to read his mind. She didn't want to violate his mind she just wanted him to talk to her. So communication broke down and they were probably afraid to pursue things further.

Jean was also changing. Not only was she getting added responsibility at the School and as apart of Xavier's dream, her telekinesis was returning and with it a radical transformation back into the Phoenix. Like she told Logan she felt so powerful and alive but Scott didn't seem to notice or care. However as we got to see Scott did notice and was quite worried. Jean turned to Logan for comfort and Scott turned to Emma.

Two main things severed Scott and Jean's relationship-- Scott and Emma falling in love and Jean having a cosmic destiny which causes her to die to return. Scott and Emma fell in love because they were both messed up and needed each other. They could relate and brought out the best in each other. Sure Emma seemed to be in it at first to cause trouble but she ended up falling in love with him. Like Scott said he and Jean were trying to recapture those earth shattering feelings they had for each other when she first became Phoenix. Jean had to let Scott go because it was unfair to make him go through these "reruns of grief". Jean is destined to die to return, always coming back but never knowing exactly when she will return. She may resurrect immediately or she might return 150 years in the future. She is beyond Scott and functionally immortal. Its not fair to Scott and its ultimately heart breaking for Jean too. She had to let him go because of what Love says and because the Phoenix disinfects and dies to return. If you love someone, sometimes you have to let them go. Of course Scott still loved Jean and was going to chose Jean over Emma until Jean died. Scott wanted to do the right them. However knowing her destiny and to prevent a horrible future Jean made a sacrifice (she watered the badly wounded orphan universe with her hearts blood) and allowed Scott to Live and to chose Emma instead.

I don't think Morrison ruined Emma or Magneto's characterization either. Emma was still a good guy and a teacher. She still did unethical things with her powers and she still had a tough exterior, almost never showing weaknesses. She was still arrogant and smart and she did care for her students. Sure she had a lot of great lines and was upity and was very conscious about class and looks but she did save the day and few times and we did get to see depth through her interactions with Jean and Scott and her students. We got to learn more about her past and her struggles and her motivations. I thought the origin he gave her was way better than the Generation X one where the ridiculous Dark Beast was involved. Gen X was a dumb book anyways, wasn't it? Of course that is an opinion and a value judgment.

Morrisn's Magneto also did have elements of the sympthatetic Claremontian version. Xorn was representative of his good side, his true side. Xorn was his inner star as it was said. Psycho Magneto was Magneto amped and influenced by Sublime's aggression. Though Magneto did not realize it. Anyways Morrison's Magneto was closer to what Magneto originally was- a crazed meglomaniac bent on controling the world and mass enslavement and perhaps murder. Planet X had a lot of dark humor in it as well which set it apart from many other X-Men stories. Here we have a villian being a villian and really making an impact. He destroyed a city essentially and mass killed a lot of humans. It was ironic and sad the he as a holocaust survivor ended up being a hitler himself. That of course also made it very controversial.

In a way Scott's optic blasts were like a phalic symbol. Afterall there was a while when Scott was not able to produce a blast without any explaination. He was finally able to achieve a big blast when he got his confidence back. Earlier on he decided to be celibate even though he was married and tried to get help from a sex therapist (Emma) who ended up initiating a psychic affiar and later he went to a stripper but she didn't do anything for him. Even Cassandra in Imperial mentioned how Scott and Jean would lie in bed without touching and that she would hate him for his weaknesses and how they mirrored her own.

So I don't think its that much of a stretch that Scott might have had some impotency problems. ;)

Anyways New X-Men did have a lot of shocking moments and funny moments and some strange new ideas. But it also had continious themes and characterizations and subtle hints throughout it and thats what makes it so great.

[Beast]

Long drawn out deconstruction of the books arn't going to change the fact that many of us felt the run wasn't all that good. I do think many of you are giving Morrison far too much credit, especially with some of that stretching that is going on. In the end, it doesn't matter how much of a fine tooth comb you use to deconstruct every aspect of the book. People had problems with the logic and characterization in some aspects. Just look at how Morrison uses Wolverine to be his mouthpeice for trashing the spandex costumes of old. Wolverine, the guy who choose on his own for years to wear a yellow and blue spandex costume, even before joining the X-Men. And even wore it when he wasn't associated with the team and was off doing the loner act. ;)

[Dino Pollard]

Long drawn out deconstruction of the books arn't going to change the fact that many of us felt the run wasn't all that good.
Your point being? I specifically stated it's not my intention or goal to change your opinion on it. I just want you to think about my words and perhaps look at Morrison's run in a new light. I'm posing a challenge to everyone who hated Morrison's run or those who think there was nothing beneath the surface -- reread his run and keep what was said in both my article and others while you're rereading it. Maybe you'll notice some of these things.

I do think many of you are giving Morrison far too much credit, especially with some of that stretching that is going on.
Then obviously, you don't know Morrison. Much of the stuff written in these articles was confirmed by Morrison in interviews -- both before and after they were written. If you doubt how in-depth Morrison's work can be, I suggest you read not only his run on THE INVISIBLES, but also ANARCHY FOR THE MASSES: THE DISINFORMATION GUIDE TO THE INVISIBLES.

If anything, I'm underanalyzing Morrison's run.

[Henry T.]

Long drawn out deconstruction of the books arn't going to change the fact that many of us felt the run wasn't all that good. I do think many of you are giving Morrison far too much credit, especially with some of that stretching that is going on. In the end, it doesn't matter how much of a fine tooth comb you use to deconstruct every aspect of the book. People had problems with the logic and characterization in some aspects. Just look at how Morrison uses Wolverine to be his mouthpeice for trashing the spandex costumes of old. Wolverine, the guy who choose on his own for years to wear a yellow and blue spandex costume, even before joining the X-Men. And even wore it when he wasn't associated with the team and was off doing the loner act. ;)

Sure I realize that some simply don't like it and aren't going to like it.

But I don't think its too much to ask that the people who are saying that certain observations are stretches to actually identify which ones they believe are stretches and why. Nor is it too much to ask that they provide evidence from the actual issues.

Also its not too much to ask the people who claim that certain themes do not exist to post why they think they don't exist and provide the evidence from the comics. And if they are going to claim that these articles are overanalyzing or faulty well is it too much to ask them to analyze the articles? It not about changing someones opinion per se its about backing up your arguments with evidence from the actual issues. Can you show that some of the themes mentioned in these articles are stretches, are not true or aren' there? Is there another perspective?

Sure I can see why some might not like Logan putting down the customes since he chose to wear them and has worn them so long. However realistically the costumes are silly and I don't think its realistic that a tough guy like Logan would actually have liked wearing silly looking yellow spandex costumes anyways. Furthermore his comment doesn't seen to be all that important to the grand scheme of the stories . Sure it was used to explain and justify the change to the leather look. Also I realize that iconic imagery is very important as well so I do understand why some fans did not like that change. But in the overall context of the run there were much more important themes and happenings throughout that in my opinion should be appreciated or at least recognized. I don't expect everyone to love everything about it. There are postitive and negative aspects to be found in nearly everything.

Anyways Morrison isn't the only one to use characters as a mouthpiece.

For example Claremont having Betsy diss the Phoenix "Does everything have to be about that bloody bird!?" Now here we have Claremont who created the Phoenix and seemingly loves it as he always uses it with Jean and Rachel, dissing it. And it is him using her as a mouthpiece as Betsy has no reason to be annoyed by the Phoenix. Its not that Claremont hates the Phoenix its just that he didn't like how Morrison and Pak used it. imho.

EDIT

And let me also state that I also was not a fan of Grant Morrison's before his New X-Men run. I had never heard of Grant Morrison until it was announced that he would be the new writer on the X-Books and I had never read a Morrison comic until New #114.

[someone777]

Shere after Morrison's run on New X-men all the others wh toke over and not forgetting FF's 4 seems to get other fans of Emma to slwly hat her. Lets see Astonishing X-Men seems to make her more hatfull in the eye's of fans. Joss Whedon seems not to be on Morrison side. Then there's EndSong (Man! did that ever blow up in Emma's face. And that was to make her look good. And take the place of Jean for good. The first two soled well, But the last two... Well Not to good.) Not even The guy who created Emma, Claremon put her in a good lite. See Morrison din't think ahead on this. That all fans and and the ones who make up storys for the X-Men see Emma as one tipe of character. A Bitch! And even future story tellers can't seem to put her in a good lite. At all. Even the one who try to put her in a good lite can't do it. So why try to make a character sound good when everyone know's all she'll do is land on her face? :confused:

[Erik Lehnsherr]

I think that he was trying to say that Magneto truly is a puppet. Every decade or so Magneto will get some character development and decide to be good, or at least have a cease-fire with the X-men. See the time when he almost killed Kitty.

But sure enough, the editors and often the fans as well will scream "Evil!Magneto was the best! He's too iconic to change like that!" And Magneto will flip out for some convoluted reason and become a terrorist again.

This is despite his nature. Magneto is always written in a sympathetic style, and as a resonable character who CAN be kind and empathetic but is ruled by his fears, traumas, and prejudices. The natural evolution for such a character is to mature into someone who choses the right course despite his past and realizes that he's wrong. But since that's not as marketable or interesting as "Magneto is going to crush the earth with asteroids/reset the poles/crush an office" he's constantly being deviated from the character path he should naturally take. Sublime is the perfect symbol for this.

I can't seemingly agree with such a thing. From what I've read over the years from all different kind of fans, they love Magneto being the gray area character and because of lackluster writers not utilizing that part of Magneto and end up trying to make him the tool for the genetic war between humans and mutants. Now, after Operation Zero Tolerance, I could understand exactly why Magneto would enact a plan to take Genosha by force and use it as sanctuary for mutants worldwide. It befits his goal of wanting a mutant empire. But the overdramatic gestures that Morrison wrote Magneto as and then came up with a puppetmaster that has NEVER mattered before as the tool to make a mockery of Magneto is why Morrison lacked depth. Do something different instead of trying to make Magneto into some 60s recluse of himself and not go on with the progression that Claremont made for Magneto two decades ago. Planet X remains an embarassment to X-continuity and thank goodness they had to recton that mess and have a fraud be the cause.

[Dan Apodaca]

I wouldn't say that at all, apart form this board and ComiX-fan most people I've spoke to love Morrisons work, that's why it sold so well.

I was speaking in reference to this board.