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.

[Dan Apodaca]

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?

No, silly. The rudeness was in your comparison of the analysis to pornography. That was not a nice thing to say about Dino's article. It was rude.

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.

No, you're confusing analysis with critique. An analysis doesn't have to be unbiased. It's someone poring over a work and delivering their opinions on what it is, what it's about, and why (and if) it matters. Dino gave an analysis of the stories and characters involved in Morrison's run. And if you check the definition of analysis,

a·nal·y·sis P Pronunciation Key (-nl-ss)
n. pl. a·nal·y·ses (-sz)
The separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.
The study of such constituent parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole.
A spoken or written presentation of such study: published an analysis of poetic meter.

you'll see why his was perfectly appropriate for the term, and in fact, a good analysis. He studied the work and gave his thoughts on it.

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.

No. I apparently misunderstood what you were saying. It's amazing to me that you got so worked up about it. Also, you can't really accuse me of presenting my conclusion as fact. The mocking tone of it makes it pretty obvious that it's my opinion. I didn't twist your words at all. I quoted them exactly as you had written them. I have faith in the posting community to be intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions about what you wrote, and to understand easily that I was making a snide remark in response to your comment.

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.

Perhaps if your fake analysis was better or more accurate, you would have made your point better.

[Titan76]

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.
Before I response I just want to say that I do think that Morrison did write Jean/Phoenix combo better then anyone since Carelemonte in his first run. With that said I have to disagree with you on servel things you said about Scott and Jean and them spliting up. First of when Morrison came to X-men the first thing he in a interview was that he was going to brake up Scott and Jean because they were a boring couple just like you said. I'm sorry but from what I have been told(I'm not married by the way) by so many people that I know friends, family, people I work with, etc. when you get married it does get boring after awhile. Hell even Chris Rock who has been married for 8 yrs. I think said in his stand up on HBO quote "You could be either single and lonely or married and bored", so I don't get it when people say that they should be broken up because their marriage was boring. Just saying that is not a good enough reason for me and a lot of other fans. Hell look at the other big 3 marriages in comic book right now, Superman/Lois, Spiderman/MJ, and Redd/Sue, I think their marriages are as just as boring as were Scott/Jean's was, so does that mean they should be broken up. When your married it stops becoming about just that person and about the persons who are married. I think Morrison could have writen them as a very good couple but chose not to because he hated them as a couple the way we hate Scott and Emma as a couple.
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.
You almost had me before you said that Scott didn't think he could tell Jean about it casue he was afraid she would trivialize it because she been there and shrugged it off. First off Jean just didn't shrugged off the Dard Phoenix effect that happen to her it took he a great deal of time which we saw in X-factor and a little help from her friends, more help from Scott just to get over that. And she never shrugged it off, the things she did as dark Phoenix still effect her but she learned how to accept it and move on. So IMO it would have made more sense for Scott to not only talk to Jean about it but may be bring them closer together. And Morrison never truely showed us what Scott have been through after he had been possessed by Apocalypse, he told us a few things that really didn't seem like a big enough deal to question his marriage to Jean. He should have went more indepth about it to give us readers a chance to see what was going on in Scott head. He gave us a half a** explantion and left it like that.
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.
I agree with all of this expect Scott turning to Emma. That should have been one of last person of earth he should have turn to. Remember Emma is part to blame for Jean turning into Dark Phoenix because she help Mastermind to try and control Jean and her powers. This is why I can't understand why of all the people he could of turn to like say Xavier, Wolverine, Beast, Angel, Iceman, Nightcrawler, JEAN, Pagie, M, etc he turns to Emma. That is way out of character IMO.
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, 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.
See this is where I agree and disagree. If Morrison wanted to break up Scott and Jean because of Jean being the Phoenix and having some sort of cosmic destiny then fine that would have been alright but that was not why he did it. He did it because he didn't like them together and wanted Scott with Emma. And Scott under Morrison never said he loved Emma, that was in EndSong. That was Marvel trying to tell us fans who were screaming about them being together that they belong together and love each. Yeah right. To me Scott went with Emma because ...... I don't know. That's where the problem lies, why of all people he went with Emma I don't get. It would have made more sense if he got with Strom because they both lost someone very close to them and that sort of thing drives people together(look at Pearl Habor). And how was Emma mess up. Yes she surrived the holocost in Genosia and that can have a big impact on somone's life but he never wrote her being mess up. Infact she never even says anything or shows anything that's wrong with her.
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.
I can of agree with this but Morrison should have not chose to foreget all the growth Emma got in Generation X. One minute she is Gen X good Emma and the next minute she is back to her old ways and dressing sluting like she did when she was with the Hellfire club. That sort of thing should have been explain better.
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.
The thing about Scott not being able to use his optic blast until he got his confidence back I think is really dumb. It's like in Spider-Man 2 when Peter's powers wouldn't work until he got really mad about Dr. O taking MJ right in front of him and he wanted her back. That's just really stuiped and out of character when it comes to their powers. And just because Scott and Jean wouldn't touch each other in bed means nothing. When your married you sleep with the same person every night sooner or later you stop touching each other and just go to bed. And for Jean hating Scott for his weaknesses because they mirrored her own was IMO also not true to character. Jean would always comfront Scott when he has major problems because he always trys to run from them. That was one of the reason why he loved Jean. So for Jean to be written like that IMO needed more explanation then what Morrison gave.

[Frank]

I was with Morrison(even if some artwork sucked)...until Xorn was revealed as Magneto. Then Grant lost me. It was like a bad soap opera cliché. In retrospect Grant should have been better than the writers that preceded him and let the top villain die. Erik died on Genosha! Why on Earth did he bring him back?! And why did he think Marvel would let him dead after he himself cheated and brought him back?

I just think Grant used subtility but when Magneto came back it`s like Grant became Mark Millar and there the villain does the typical Millar super-villain widescreen smackdown by pumping himself with a drug and almost destroying New York city. I was like:"is this really Grant Morrison?" I looked at the name quite a few times to be sure. Not so lucky. :(

[Calybos]

Dear Lord, this kind of over-analytical blather is one of the reasons I avoid most of the X-titles. The arrogance of saying "If you don't like Morrison, then what you like isn't really the X-Men"! (Or you're just not Smart and Sophisticated enough. "Deconstruction", for pity's sake!)

People like what they like; nobody has to apologize for it or "prove" anything to each other. If Morrison's stuff didn't work for you, don't buy it. It doesn't make you any less sophisticated or less intelligent than any other X-fan. Ditto for any other writer. Sure, some are better than others, and some have made mistakes widely acknowledged by most of the fans (who are, after all, the ultimate arbiters of what's good).

But don't waste your time on heated arguments as if "quality" was some objective thing that could be measured and proven, with comments like "Morrison got it right, and everyone who did it differently was misinterpreting the character." Sheesh, what nonsense! If you like something, say so and give your reasons; don't beat up the people who dare to disagree with your fanboy obsession.

[JolieBrunette]

My problem with this sort of literary analysis is that it is very reductive and has been long since discredited in academic circles. For those of you who have done some criticial theory, it's very typical of structuralism, i.e. find the central opposition and then explain the rest of the text in terms of it. In this case, the central opposition is old/new, and every character is then made to represent some aspect of the X-Men mythos or the readers' reaction to it. I personally think Morrisons text is far more complex and has a multiplicity of meanings.

Just take Emma Frost as an example. Through her relationship with Scott, Morrison was exploring a number of ideas about transgression and taboo. She had an adulterous relationship with Scott, and did it in the form of his wife. In most traditional narratives, that behaviour would be discovered and she would be punished for it by ostracism and the loss of the man she loved. However, in this one, the affair was discovered and Jean appeared to punish her by going through her worst memories, but the storyline concluded with Jean giving Scott to Emma. Therefore, a highly subversive story that actually ends with transgressive behaviour being rewarded.

Through the Cuckoos, he was also exploring how teachers often cross the line with their students, the various dangers implicit in a relationship where one party has power and the other doesn't. The title of one of the issues likens to the Miss Jean Brody who shares her most intimate thoughts with her students and encourages her students to emulate her. Ultimately, one of Brodie's students becomes so like her that she becomes a threat to her, as happened with the Cuckoos.

Those are just a few ideas, but I think they show how Pollard's schema is pretty simplistic and much more is going on within the text.

ETA: Er, I hope this doesn't seem too bitchy. I went into full academic mode there, rather than fan mode. This is standard staff room discourse. :D

[Jared_Humpherys]

Dear Lord, this kind of over-analytical blather is one of the reasons I avoid most of the X-titles. The arrogance of saying "If you don't like Morrison, then what you like isn't really the X-Men"! (Or you're just not Smart and Sophisticated enough. "Deconstruction", for pity's sake!)

People like what they like; nobody has to apologize for it or "prove" anything to each other. If Morrison's stuff didn't work for you, don't buy it. It doesn't make you any less sophisticated or less intelligent than any other X-fan. Ditto for any other writer. Sure, some are better than others, and some have made mistakes widely acknowledged by most of the fans (who are, after all, the ultimate arbiters of what's good).

But don't waste your time on heated arguments as if "quality" was some objective thing that could be measured and proven, with comments like "Morrison got it right, and everyone who did it differently was misinterpreting the character." Sheesh, what nonsense! If you like something, say so and give your reasons; don't beat up the people who dare to disagree with your fanboy obsession.


I don't think the analysis of Morrison's New X-men is any sort of negative commentary on the casual reader. The point is ore that Morrison actually does use a lot of symbolism, synchronicity, and synergy in his work. He really does try to put layered messages like that(Invisible and Filth are both proof of that). Just because it's not to your tastes doesn't make you any less of a good reader, or means that you "just don't get it." There's nothing wrong with taking New X-men at face value, as comics are meant as an entertaining medium.

[atoningunifex]

Pollard certainly didn't think his article was the final say on the run. He mentioned here about how interesting he found some of our insights. And I find yours interesting as well. Post more. :)

[Calybos]

I don't think the analysis of Morrison's New X-men is any sort of negative commentary on the casual reader. The point is ore that Morrison actually does use a lot of symbolism, synchronicity, and synergy in his work. He really does try to put layered messages like that(Invisible and Filth are both proof of that). Just because it's not to your tastes doesn't make you any less of a good reader, or means that you "just don't get it." There's nothing wrong with taking New X-men at face value, as comics are meant as an entertaining medium.

Thank you. THAT'S reasonable. I guess I've been exposed to too many Morrison- and Ellis-worshippers.

[Uncle Nobs]

I haven't finished reading this thread yet, but I really need to get this out of my system:

I am going to PUKE if I read one more post along the lines of, "So-and-so's not the be-all, end-all of writers," or, "Stop worshipping the ground So-and-so writes on," or, "Sorry if I don't think So-and-so is the greatest writer since ink was first put to paper," or, "Well if I'm to believe you, I guess So-and-so is the greatest thing since sliced bread, edible undies, and the invention of the wheel."

E

N

O

U

G

H

!

That sort of extremist crap does nothing but closes your own mind to other points of view and provokes others into closing their minds to your own views. After all the time I've spent on these boards and the respect I've developed for most posters here, I expect better from ALL of you.

[atoningunifex]

Someone had a bowl of drama flakes for breakfast. :)

[Jared_Humpherys]

Thank you. THAT'S reasonable. I guess I've been exposed to too many Morrison- and Ellis-worshippers.

You're welcome. Don't get me wrong, I adore most of Ellis's and Morrison's work, but that does not give one cause to be pretentious to other readers. Hell, I like a straightforward superhero story or slobberknocker as much as the next man. Variety is the spice of life, and since an entertainment medium is judged by the readers, one opinion or style is not automatically superior to others. I am very pleased that common ground could be found in this thread:).

[Uncle Nobs]

Someone had a bowl of drama flakes for breakfast. :)
Let's just hope there was enough bran to do the job here.

[atoningunifex]

Let's just hope there was enough bran to do the job here.

*hugs* I wuv you Uncle Nobs. please add your thoughts to the discussion.

[Alan2099]

I haven't finished reading this thread yet, but I really need to get this out of my system:

I am going to PUKE if I read one more post along the lines of, "So-and-so's not the be-all, end-all of writers," or, "Stop worshipping the ground So-and-so writes on," or, "Sorry if I don't think So-and-so is the greatest writer isince ink was first put to paper," or, "Well if I'm to believe you, I guess So-and-so is the greatest thing since sliced bread, edible undies, and the invention of the wheel."
I take it you've never actually read So-and-So's work on That One Comic. Very contraversial stuff. I can understand why people would be split over it. Especially that one issue, where the stuff happens to that guy. Man, that was something!

[Calybos]

Good one, Alan!

[Dan Apodaca]

if we're looking at it that way- I don't think Quentin represents a stagnant writer so much as a writer who goes for the splash without the consequence. Quentin's actions were big and loud and explosive but there was no real thought for what would happen after them. He'd be more an "event" writer. Someone who would come and make a big, splashy event and get out of town.

There's a certain attraction and dynamism to that kind of writer. They can be very entertaining. But then others are left to pick up the pieces.

And yes, before it gets mentioned, that could apply to Morrison himself.

Or even Joss Whedon.

[ultramandingo]

how well did the invisbles sell? not very , so morrison just slaped an x on it gave em some goofy-er new names and powers and "snikt" , top 10 book. you know ellis/ennis/millar where thinking "why didnt i think of that?"....anyway , fantomax, coolest "french" guy ever

[Titan Slade]

fantomax, coolest "french" guy ever

There is no such thing as a cool French guy, but a French guy that does not bathe daily, wear deodorant, or runs from a fight, is a regular occurance ;) .

[Be Stiff]

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.

No, they totally are. You could argue that it's been that way since THE X-MEN #1, when Stan gave him the whole I CANNOT DATE THE GIRL I LOVE BECAUSE OF UNCONTROLLABLE RELEASE UGGGGGGH persona. What do you think the line I'M TRYING BUT NOTHING'S COMING OUT meant?

It was a metaphor for his penis, and sperm.

I usually get bored to distraction with Morrison's heavy handed themes, but it all worked out really well in X-men.

[Be Stiff]

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.

Man, he totally grew Logan - he drew a line under his flirtation with Jean as early as issue 4 of the run.

The bit on the satelite where Logan's overcome with despair and self-loathing only to be rebutted by Jean underlines his character growth in a really ace and touching way.

[Dan Apodaca]

how well did the invisbles sell? not very , so morrison just slaped an x on it gave em some goofy-er new names and powers and "snikt" , top 10 book. you know ellis/ennis/millar where thinking "why didnt i think of that?"....anyway , fantomax, coolest "french" guy ever

I'd actually say that The Invisibles and his run on X-Men were two entirely different comics. Nowhere near being similar.

[ultramandingo]

I'd actually say that The Invisibles and his run on X-Men were two entirely different comics. Nowhere near being similar.

x-cept the various world wide teams/cells in leather/rubber getups with hairless leaders , hot red heads , sorta/very gay hairy guys , hallucinations/telepathy , aliens , government cover ups, stick it to the man part. or was that the matrix

[Be Stiff]

x-cept the various world wide teams/cells in leather/rubber getups with hairless leaders , hot red heads , sorta/very gay hairy guys , hallucinations/telepathy , aliens , government cover ups, stick it to the man part. or was that the matrix

No other story has ever contained these elements in conjunction, ever

[el seth]

The difference (or perhaps a difference) between Claremont and Morrison is that Morrison HAS subtext - although you may find it boring or heavy-handed or irrelevant to your life - and Claremont has pages and PAGES of text on every page telling you exactly what's happening, how the characters feel about it and what you the reader should be feeling about the characters feeling about it. Which is fine, really - Claremont is a damn good FUN soap opera writer with a solid social conscince. I just don't have the time and money to spend on a story that DOSEN'T make me think or demand multiple reads to understand fully.

Really, the people I feel sorry for the most in this whole situation are the characters. There's just no way to imagine a human going through the crazy shit they've been through in an entire lifetime - much less however long Marvel "continuity" is supposed to last. I can't even relate to it. But I'm sure a decade from now everyone's pet X-Men will be ploding along learning valuable angst-ridden life lessons while thier lives change not in the least - ar at least not for very long. I'll just put the New X-Men hardcovers on my shelf and get on with my life - that is, unless some other writer I'm fond of does a stint.

[The Dosadi Experiment]

The difference (or perhaps a difference) between Claremont and Morrison is that Morrison HAS subtext - although you may find it boring or heavy-handed or irrelevant to your life - and Claremont has pages and PAGES of text on every page telling you exactly what's happening, how the characters feel about it and what you the reader should be feeling about the characters feeling about it. Which is fine, really - Claremont is a damn good FUN soap opera writer with a solid social conscince.

This, people, is what I'm ranting against. Not so much people who are comparing one to the other, but attributing certain qualities to one writer, but at the same time, refuse to do a similar thing for another.

This refusal based of course on simple favoritism.

I like writer X, so he has subtext, meta-textual devices, is brilliant in his set-up and excecution, but I don't like writer Y, so he only churns out mediocre flat works of drivel, that has no deeper meaning.

The only reason why X get praised and Y not, is because of favoritism.


I just don't have the time and money to spend on a story that DOSEN'T make me think or demand multiple reads to understand fully.


It's quite obvious that there is a subtext in Claremont's work, you're just not seeing it.

[Brian Cronin]

The thread has been civil enough that I've let the "no comparison" rule slide so far, as the basic concept of the no comparison rule is to avoid uncivil behavior.

If threads like this CAN be done civilly, I'm all for it.

When the "no comparison" thing really is most useful is in, say, a discussion thread of a recent issue of whatever title, and someone says, "Write X sucks, because he is not as good as Writer Y!" or "I didn't like what Writer Y did here." "Oh yeah, but Writer X did it here and here and here."

So, for now, carry on. ;)

-Brian

[el seth]

It's quite obvious that there is a subtext in Claremont's work, you're just not seeing it.

Such as... ? I mean, I guess you could say the "subtext" of God Loves Man Kills is racism and religious extremism, but I think it's so obvious and the narrator hits you over the head with it so relentlessly that I wouldn't even call it subtext anymore.

Maybe the way I'm defining subtext is unfair. I'm not going to say that Claremont isn't trying to say SOMETHING important with his work, it's just that he really, really wants to makes sure you know exaclty what it is by telling you. And the things he's been saying were important and revolutionary back in the late seventies and early eighties, but by now are part of the general political climate and just come off as preachy. Although I have to admit I haven't picked up any of his modern current run except the house of M issue - so I have to wonder if there's anything going in there other than general soap opera ramblings, which I'm inclined to assume seeing as how everyone seems rather unimpressed with what he's done so far, although I might have to pick up SOME of it becasue I'm a huge Alan Davis fanboy.

[Dan Apodaca]

The thread has been civil enough that I've let the "no comparison" rule slide so far, as the basic concept of the no comparison rule is to avoid uncivil behavior.

If threads like this CAN be done civilly, I'm all for it.

When the "no comparison" thing really is most useful is in, say, a discussion thread of a recent issue of whatever title, and someone says, "Write X sucks, because he is not as good as Writer Y!" or "I didn't like what Writer Y did here." "Oh yeah, but Writer X did it here and here and here."

So, for now, carry on. ;)

-Brian

Thanks for your input, Brian. I'm trying to make sure this stays respectful.

[Dan Apodaca]

This, people, is what I'm ranting against. Not so much people who are comparing one to the other, but attributing certain qualities to one writer, but at the same time, refuse to do a similar thing for another.

This refusal based of course on simple favoritism.

I like writer X, so he has subtext, meta-textual devices, is brilliant in his set-up and excecution, but I don't like writer Y, so he only churns out mediocre flat works of drivel, that has no deeper meaning.

The only reason why X get praised and Y not, is because of favoritism.

No. Some artists are better than others. There are simple factors which can be universally used to determine whether someone is more able at the ability than the other. Some stories are bad stories. Not because of my (or anyone's) personal opinion on the matter, but because of qualities like plot, pacing, dialogue, character, subtext, etc., or the lack thereof.

You can love a writer. He or she can be your favorite. But that doesn't mean they're good.

There are people out there who think that Cher is the best singer of our modern era. I think she stinks. But neither of these opinions determine whether she is good or not. What matters is if she can sing on key, if she can put emotion into the words, and if she can keep the rhythm.

Michael Bay does not use subtext in his movies. That's not a matter of personal opinion or favoritism. It's just a fact. He directs light, action fare. That's fine. But to say that he's as good a director as Martin Scorcese is just wrong. Scorcese uses elements in his direction that never even enter the equation in a Michael Bay movie.

So, when someone says that Writer M is better than Writer C because M uses subtext, clear and real spiritual context and understanding, and multi-layered metaphors, that's not a mtter of opinion, that's a fact.

Mr. Joseph Rice wrote an astute column on this very subject at the New Comic Book Galaxy. I cannot, however, find it. If someone can, I'd be grateful for their posting it.


It quite obvious that there is subtext in Claremont's work, you're just not seeing it.

Care to back up your statement with some evidence? After all, I did inculde a rather large article supporting my stance on the subtext of Morrison's work. Perhaps you could do the same? Can you?

[The Dosadi Experiment]

scroll back in this thread...

On Ice was all about individuality and how the individual is a victim of society's need to determine what physical demands should be met in order to be accepted.

[igarath]

wow... that was a good read. a great way to look at it...
gave me a lot to think of.

[Be Stiff]

scroll back in this thread...

On Ice was all about individuality and how the individual is a victim of society's need to determine what physical demands should be met in order to be accepted.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was all about BDSM. Again.

[Henry T.]

Theres a new Grant Morrison interview out where he mentions that he adds multiple meanings (double, triple, and sometimes quadruple) to his works. So the people that were saying that he doesn't add these layers and themes intentionally are so wrong as well as the people who think that we shouldn't look for or discuss them, imo.

http://www.popthought.com/display_column.asp?DAID=861

Some excerpts...


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

All stories are filled with metaphor, like all of human life. Perhaps I've been over-enthusiastic, but I've always enjoyed talking about theory and allegory because I figure some readers, like me, might be interested in the elaborate behind-the-scenes thought processes which create the stories they read.

What can I say? I'm not some big intellectual: I grew up as a working class kid in a violent town. My dad was an ex-soldier turned peacenik activist, my mum worked part time in offices, doing shorthand and typing. I left school at 18 never to return but I was lumbered with the precious gift of interpretation by Mr. Thompson, my English teacher, so I like things to have double, triple or quadruple meanings, if possible, with multiple POVs and big spaces for the reader to vanish into and fill up with ideas of his or her own, sort of like 'Lost' on the telly, or like 'The Prisoner' or the films of David Lynch, for instance. My own personal taste doesn't run to literal work or stuff where everything's neatly explained to me and tied in a 'clever' bow. The world's a big, wild mess and I like to reflect that. As a reader, I like to join in and not just watch, if you see what I mean, so as a writer my intention has always been to create experiences which deliberately raise questions or suggest further, untold stories and don't necessarily have one easy solution or outcome. I like to leave people with something to talk about and fire their own imaginations and I'm trying to capture the real patterns of real life.

To elaborate on that, in real life, people say things they don't actually mean and they don't have little thought balloons or captions hovering nearby to explain what they're really thinking: even if they did, they'd be thinking several contradictory things at once and in different voices, with pictures and scribbly feelings attached. In real life, we judge people by how their actions and their words match up. In real life, we don't get all the facts but have to use our logic and emotions and sense of smell to draw our own conclusions. In real life, two people can appear to be having the same conversation while actually discussing several quite different things.

In real life, conversations are peppered with weird dead ends, misunderstandings, interruptions, surrealist non sequiturs and in-jokes. In real life, you don't get neatly-controlled dramatic set-ups and resolutions. In real life, the writer isn't nearly as clever as he'd like to appear on the page. And so on. For these reasons, I like to think of myself as a hard-nosed realist writer and SEAGUY, for instance, as being much more directly relevant to the world we actually live in and the way we live our lives than any number of allegedly 'realistic' comics which only deal in wish fulfillment soap opera melodrama. I like to think my work is operating at a uniquely high level of structural and metaphorical sophistication, more in the manner of music or poetry. That's why it's so easy for different people to 'read' it differently and to form such often wildly contradictory opinions.




AN: Is your use of metaphor the means in which comics will finally climb the gate and enter "accepted mediums"?

GM: Comics don't need to climb the gate and enter anything. We're having more fun outside in the sun.

As I said, metaphor occurs naturally in ANY story. The fact that Tolkien's Ring can easily stand in for the Bomb, or for Addiction, or for any number of things - which it can - doesn't seem to hamper people's enjoyment of the elephant fights in 'The Lord of the Rings', so metaphorical content shouldn't be looked upon as anything highbrow or unusual. I tend to see it everywhere, but that's just how I'm wired up. I don't know about you, but I can't look at Godzilla without seeing the atom bomb over Nagasaki, the screaming, hyper-enthusiastic shopgirls of Shibuya, Tokyo, and the devastating smile of the goddess Amaterasu, among other things, all piled on top of one another and representing the very same something.

Metaphor's there to be read or applied if you want to enrich your experience of art. It can just as easily be ignored if all you want to do is watch the action and look at the weird, cool pictures. The same is true of my comics, or anyone else's. There's subtext everywhere, but you don't have to bother with it if it's not your thing. Just dance to the beat of the story, and if you don't 'understand' everything, well, good. It'll stand you in good stead for the real world - a place filled with people and events you will NEVER entirely understand. You don't have to understand an experience in order to have it. You will, in fact, DIE not understanding most of what goes on in the world and why. Don't sweat it. Dance with it.

AN: By showing how the medium can be so multifaceted won't otherwise comic virgins be forced to admit that the medium is valid? And why, after your Doom Patrol run and books like Maus and Wilderness, is that still a valid question?

GM: Well, the way I see it, Alex, images, ideas and characters derived from comic books now cover just about every available surface in the civilized world. X-Men cereal! The Incredibles pajamas! Sky High! What more proof do comics fans need that the rest of the world has - at least for a moment - stopped laughing at all the crazy @#%$ we're into?

.........

AN: Yes to those.

When you wrote X-Men, many people thought that there were both genuine moments of brilliance and opportunities lost . How would you characterize your work on that book and, is there anything you'd like to go back and change at this early time to reflect?

GM: No. If I had to 'go back' I'd slit my wrists all over again. People think all kinds of things, but one man's opportunity lost is another man's brilliant moment. It's impossible to please everybody, so I just try to please myself. I'm a long-time, hardcore comics fan and I know the kind of stuff I like to read, so I write for my own smart and demanding, inner teenage fanboy. I'm happy with 'New X-Men', although not as happy as I am with 'Invisibles' or 'Marvel Boy' or 'Seven Soldiers' or 'We3'. Disagreements with Bill Jemas left me feeling very uncomfortable at Marvel, I must admit, and I think that flavored the work, although possibly for the better.

Then, after 9/11, the millennial demand for 'New' became replaced by a fearful retreat towards 'Familiar' and those tensions are all reflected in New X-Men. It's a 'difficult' work of mine, certainly. It dealt with a lot of very heavy emotions. I was writing 'Here Comes Tomorrow' while visiting the hospital every day to watch my dad dying of cancer. Like I said before, every experience goes straight into the work when you're writing this mad pulp fantasy every day for a living. Every time I re-read New X-Men, I like it better, though, and if I hadn't done it I'd probably have drifted into obscurity doing odd Vertigo books, so the experience was definitely worth it. It's a very tightly-structured and self-referential piece and gave me the idea for Seven Soldiers.

What more can I say? The book was immensely successful for Marvel, and with a much higher frequency of release than most titles, that meant a lot more revenue for the company. After three years and forty issues, my last issue with Marc Silvestri still made number 1 on the sales chart, so I think I did my job and shot a jolt of weird, spastic electricity through the old beast.

Still...I can't believe the hellish gymnastics they went through to 'explain' plotlines which were already explained quite simply by the stories I wrote and wrapped up. Here's how to explain what happened - XORN was NEVER REAL, he was a DISGUISE for MAGNETO who went MAD ON DRUGS and DIED...but we know he always COMES BACK, somehow, so expect a dramatic return sooner or later, True Believers!

There. All neat and tidy, the way I left it.

[Calybos]

Michael Bay does not use subtext in his movies. That's not a matter of personal opinion or favoritism. It's just a fact. He directs light, action fare. That's fine. But to say that he's as good a director as Martin Scorcese is just wrong. Scorcese uses elements in his direction that never even enter the equation in a Michael Bay movie.

Ah.. but are those elements NEEDED in what he does? I don't look for subtext in my VCR instructions, because they're not needed. Indeed, if some pretentious writer stuck some subtext in there, he'd be a WORSE writer than the guy who kept things clear and simple.

So, when someone says that Writer M is better than Writer C because M uses subtext, clear and real spiritual context and understanding, and multi-layered metaphors, that's not a mtter of opinion, that's a fact.

Uhh, nope. It's still an opinion. Just because you PREFER spiritual context or multilayered metaphors doesn't make the writer who uses them better than the one who doesn't. It just makes him better suited to what you happen to like.

Some people sneer at any TV show that doesn't contain what they call "continuity and growth for the characters." By definition, then, they hate sitcoms. But does that mean a sitcom is objectively worse than, say, Babylon 5? Not at all. It just means that the two are written for different purposes, with different styles, to please different audiences.

[xakko]

Quite frankly, I'm less inclined to like the man after that. He pretty much admits that he was shoehorning existing characters into his own metaphors. It's wonderful if that's what you want to read, but it also means the charges that the people in the books are out of character are pretty much valid.

I read an article in Wizard about an author who admitted that he was just going to use whatever parts of history he liked and discard the rest. That's all well and good, but I heartily suggest people stop buying the comics if that bothers you.

[jetter_cheeze]

Quite frankly, I'm less inclined to like the man after that. He pretty much admits that he was shoehorning existing characters into his own metaphors. It's wonderful if that's what you want to read, but it also means the charges that the people in the books are out of character are pretty much valid.



And so? The X-Men then get shoehorned into being labeled the "minority against the world" label, the FF get shoehorned into the "family" label, and etc. etc. for the rest of the marvel U.

Ever seen Mallrats when Stan Lee starts talking about how each character he created represented something he wanted to say about society or himself? "Hulk represented all the bottled up rage and anger..."

Would an editorial driven story been better for some people's taste? Where changes happen no reason behind it? There was reasoning for what Morrison did, and it was not change for change's sake as some people like to believe. He had his story to tell and it is something that some people can get and understand and some can't. It doesn't make you less or more of a person if you don't get it or not. Take from the story what you willand whatever makes you enjoy it more.

How many times have you read the same book and got the same ideas, themes, etc from it each and every time you re-read it?

[Will.S]

Still...I can't believe the hellish gymnastics they went through to 'explain' plotlines which were already explained quite simply by the stories I wrote and wrapped up. Here's how to explain what happened - XORN was NEVER REAL, he was a DISGUISE for MAGNETO who went MAD ON DRUGS and DIED...but we know he always COMES BACK, somehow, so expect a dramatic return sooner or later, True Believers!

There. All neat and tidy, the way I left it.
Haha I like that Grant emphasized that point.

In undoing Morrison's Magneto it became more of a mess than it needed to be and makes even less sense than Magneto being hopped up on drugs.

I didn't read the whole analysis but looking back at the issues at hand it does make alot of sense. Cyclops's "impotent" power being messed with psychologically is a very interesting look at the character even though I'm not 100% sure how exactly his power would just turn off like that.

I have a question for you guys, do most of you have the New X-Men hardcovers and read them like that in a more seamless manner or do you just have the individual issues and go by those. Also do the HC's have really good bonus material such as the better Marvel hardcovers like Runaways, Origin, 1602 and Ultimates?

[Sharcque]

One thing I've never quite understood, if Grant really did mean for Xorn to be Magneto, how was it exactly that Magneto, in his Xorn guise, could heal people? :confused:

[Will.S]

One thing I've never quite understood, if Grant really did mean for Xorn to be Magneto, how was it exactly that Magneto, in his Xorn guise, could heal people? :confused:
He never actually did it with his powers and if it did appear that way it was because of the use of nano-sentinels.

A bit too convenient I know but it wasn't violating Magneto as a character in any way, at least to me.

[Jake V]

One thing I've never quite understood, if Grant really did mean for Xorn to be Magneto, how was it exactly that Magneto, in his Xorn guise, could heal people? :confused:
Because he never really healed anyone. The line on Xorn was that he had a star for a brain and had healing powers. The X-Men believed this to be true when he apparently healed them at the end of the Imperial arc. What he really did though, is used his magnetic powers to kill the nanosentinels in their bloodstream. He also used the dead nanosentinels from Xavier's body to fuse his spine so he could walk again, making his ruse complete.

[Sharcque]

Because he never really healed anyone. The line on Xorn was that he had a star for a brain and had healing powers. The X-Men believed this to be true when he apparently healed them at the end of the Imperial arc. What he really did though, is used his magnetic powers to kill the nanosentinels in their bloodstream. He also used the dead nanosentinels from Xavier's body to fuse his spine so he could walk again, making his ruse complete.

I've been made aware!!!!!! Thanks, Jake!!!

[Will.S]

Because he never really healed anyone. The line on Xorn was that he had a star for a brain and had healing powers. The X-Men believed this to be true when he apparently healed them at the end of the Imperial arc. What he really did though, is used his magnetic powers to kill the nanosentinels in their bloodstream. He also used the dead nanosentinels from Xavier's body to fuse his spine so he could walk again, making his ruse complete.
Yeap.

One of the great things about the Magneto being Xorn revelation is that he masterminded the whole thing. He's usually known for being a good schemer but this one was one of his boldest moves yet. The other thing that added to the beauty of it for me was that even after all that planning he overlooked one little thing, his own flaw of being corrupted and addicted to kick. Now generally one would think this is something well beneath him but he falls into that path because:

1) He was too addicted to the power of being in control as well as the benefit of having his powers enhanced greatly despite his deteriorating mental health (brought up recently) and...

2) Villain plans are never foolproof, no villain has a perfect plan that doesn't have an undermining element to it.

While I'm not a huge fan of the whole Sublime entity, I have to give props to Morrison for keeping the stakes high.

[wilsonRfrost]

i was thinking about this piece and then i remembered the U-Men and i tried to think of their role.
it might sound ludicrious but could it try and say that certain people try to take what's good in mutants (the x-men franchise) and make them their own but they will always be flawed...
grrr... i got confused with myself... hope someone did understand...

[BizarroBeachHead]

i was thinking about this piece and then i remembered the U-Men and i tried to think of their role.
it might sound ludicrious but could it try and say that certain people try to take what's good in mutants (the x-men franchise) and make them their own but they will always be flawed...
grrr... i got confused with myself... hope someone did understand...
I think i understand what you say. It's represenative of when people try to cut and paste their own version of the X-Men. Or even other companies copying them(Image). A bad writer who focuses on the powers but leaves the person behind. This could be said to attribute to all the writers who have been accused of writting characters "out of character." My train of thought is causing me to ramble. I hope I can be understood.

[wilsonRfrost]

yes!

it's kinda what i did!

now if we can only decypher what the stepford cookoos role is...

[Dan Apodaca]

Ah.. but are those elements NEEDED in what he does? I don't look for subtext in my VCR instructions, because they're not needed. Indeed, if some pretentious writer stuck some subtext in there, he'd be a WORSE writer than the guy who kept things clear and simple.

Make movies? Yes, those elements are needed in what he does. Art is always the better for being richer and more full of depth.

If your argument is that you'd prefer the X-Men to be written as one-dimensional, action characters, then I need no longer debate the matter. Most of us had our fair share of simple beat-em-ups in the nineties, and we're ready for actual stories now.

Uhh, nope. It's still an opinion. Just because you PREFER spiritual context or multilayered metaphors doesn't make the writer who uses them better than the one who doesn't. It just makes him better suited to what you happen to like.

Some people sneer at any TV show that doesn't contain what they call "continuity and growth for the characters." By definition, then, they hate sitcoms. But does that mean a sitcom is objectively worse than, say, Babylon 5? Not at all. It just means that the two are written for different purposes, with different styles, to please different audiences.

Uhh, yep. It's not just an opinion. It's a review of art ascribing to widely proven and agreed upon qualifiers for what makes it a better piece of writing.

If you compare the hypothetical quotes:

"I went to the market today. I bought four apples, for one dollar a piece. They were very tasty."

and

"I went to the market today and bought four apples for only a dollar each and they were tasty."

It is obvious which is the better written sentence. One uses proper grammar, while the other is a run-on sentence. This is not a matter of opinion, it is fact. It is the same thing when you compare a piece full of subtext, metaphor, and multi-layered characters to a monotonous action book. One is simply better written.

In regards to your example, there have been sitcoms which employed character growth and continuity, and on the whole, those are widely regarded to be the better sitcoms.

[Uncle Nobs]

Why is it so hard for readers to accept that different writers have different goals?

Claremont writes (most often) fantasy fiction. He writes so readers can get lost in the fantasy world. The fourth wall and/or the protection of a self-contained fantasy world are not to be broken (except for an occasional joke on a title page). He makes it multi-layered by including a ton of life experience, spiritual themes, and appreciation for humanity, culture, history, and romance.

Byrne (just to pick a writer neutral to this discussion) writes (most often) fantasy fiction with a constant wink & nod at readers. He writes so readers have the option of getting lost in the fantasy world or interpreting it all as pure humor. The fourth wall and/or the protection of a self-contained fantasy world are broken over and over again, because he always tries to keep the focus on the idea that these fictional characters are only fictional characters, and ridiculous ones at that. He makes it multi-layered by actually telling compelling drama that works on that pure fantasy fiction level, despite the farcical elements he includes.

Morrison writes (most often) deconstructionist fiction. He writes so readers can take a closer look at a genre, medium, or characters. This means the fourth wall barely exists, because he's constantly re-examining things we have to forget if we try to read it as fantasy fiction. He makes it multi-layered by attempting to make it work on the fantasy fiction level, and by alluding to elements of modern magic and his beliefs about reality.

It doesn't mean one approach is better than the other.

It doesn't mean that Morrison is the Genius-God of Pop Fiction.

It just means different writers have different goals.



As a piece of fantasy fiction, I felt like Morrison's run started out strong, but began to fall apart with flat, choppy dialogue and stories that began to focus so much on his subversive attack on past X-editors, X-creators, and X-fans that they seemed to lose the pace and passion of the original storylines he had started with. There were some BRILLIANT ideas that worked on the straightforward fantasy fiction level. But just as often, I found myself distracted by his use of characters as mere cyphers to make his point about the X-Men's place in pop culture.

But as a piece of deconstructionist fiction, I can appreciate what he did in his run, beginning to end. I have a real problem with people dismissing an analysis of Morrison's run as the critic simply "reaching too far" or "stretching" when the analyst is identifying the exact elements that Morrison himself said he wanted to address with his run.



If he flat-out said he wanted to do an analysis of the X-Men's world and the forces behind it--all masked in the guise of straightforward fantasy fiction--why is it so hard for readers to believe that's what he did?

(It's okay. Just by recognizing his multi-layered, deconstructionist approach, it doesn't mean you're saying you like it.)

[BizarroBeachHead]

As a piece of fantasy fiction, I felt like Morrison's run started out strong, but began to fall apart with flat, choppy dialogue and stories that began to focus so much on his subversive attack on past X-editors, X-creators, and X-fans that they seemed to lose the pace and passion of the original storylines he had started with. There were some BRILLIANT ideas that worked on the straightforward fantasy fiction level. But just as often, I found myself distracted by his use of characters as mere cyphers to make his point about the X-Men's place in pop culture.

But as a piece of deconstructionist fiction, I can appreciate what he did in his run, beginning to end. I have a real problem with people dismissing an analysis of Morrison's run as the critic simply "reaching too far" or "stretching" when the analyst is identifying the exact elements that Morrison himself said he wanted to address with his run.

This is the best wording that could ever explain exactly how I feel about Morrison's run. Lets be friends. :D

When I first read Planet X, I was fairly disgusted with the way it panned out. But after I had time to contemplate the series as a whole, I really liked the way he used Magneto. In my opinion, Magneto is one of the best examples of whats wrong with X-editors. I found it nye impossible not to take all the dialague directed at Magneto as critisism for the way he has been handled in the past.

I particularly liked in issue 147, Magneto is startled by the lack of energy by his crowd and Toad responds, "You've been declared dead so many times, I don't think they know it's really you."

As well as with Phoenix's line in 150, "Is this the Magneto anyone knows? Is this what he looks like?"

But my favorite part has to be the speech Xavier gave at the end of 150, "And the worst thing you ever did was come back, Erik. Magneto had become a legend in death, an ispiration for change. Now look at you--just another foolish and self-important old man, with outdated thoughts in his head. You have nothing this new generation of mutants wants...except your face on a T-shirt. They have ideas of their own now. Perhaps it's time we put away the old dreams, the old manifestos...and just listened for a while. Your way will never work, Erik. This can't go on. I thik you've had enough. I think we've all had enough."

If this isn't direct critisism of Magento's forwards and backwards character progression/regression, as well as practically specifically adressing fan complaints about lack of new characters, then I don't know what is.

As a straight fiction story, I don't think it played out as too compelling or entertaining, but those are themes I wholly endorse, which in turn made it compelling and entertaining to me.

Also, in issue 149 when Magneto has his conversation with Xorn(himself), Xorn says, "You made Xorn too well--in the image of your idealism, your strength, your wisdom."

I really liked that line because as it stands, I feel that it is completely true of Morrison himself. I thought Xorn was too good of a character to turn out to be a villain. This is further shown by Ernst saying she missed Xorn and liked him so much, which is also a lamentation from many of the fans I believe. ;)

By the way, does anybody have any idea what Magneto was talking about when he said to Ernst, "I've always suspected there was more to you than meets the eye, Ernst, now let us see what that might be." Angel 2 steps in and prevents anything from happening. Did I completely miss something about Ernst or has it just been a floating unresolved mystery?

Apologies if some of this has already been said, it's been some time since I last read this thread.

[Mr. Jip]

By the way, does anybody have any idea what Magneto was talking about when he said to Ernst, "I've always suspected there was more to you than meets the eye, Ernst, now let us see what that might be." Angel 2 steps in and prevents anything from happening. Did I completely miss something about Ernst or has it just been a floating unresolved mystery?




Ernst is Cassandranova's in Stuff's body, morphed into a girl-hag.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HER NOW!??~
Is she still at the school???

LOVE Dan, Dino Pollard, Chaosmothra, JulieBrunette, Atoningunifex, wilsonRfrost, BizarroBeach Head & Nob's theories.

i want to MARRY YOU ALL!!!!!!!!~~~~

and Grant Morrison. :) :p :cool: :rolleyes:

[atoningunifex]

Ernst is Cassandranova's in Stuff's body, morphed into a girl-hag.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HER NOW!??~
Is she still at the school???


In the latest issue of Astonishing X-Men it was revealed (on the very last page) that Ernst has reverted to being old Cassie and is now a member of the Hellfire Club.

No sign of Martha tho......

[Tobias March]

In the latest issue of Astonishing X-Men it was revealed (on the very last page) that Ernst has reverted to being old Cassie and is now a member of the Hellfire Club.

No sign of Martha tho......

Not necessarily....the jury's still deliberating on this one

[Will.S]

I particularly liked in issue 147, Magneto is startled by the lack of energy by his crowd and Toad responds, "You've been declared dead so many times, I don't think they know it's really you."

As well as with Phoenix's line in 150, "Is this the Magneto anyone knows? Is this what he looks like?"

But my favorite part has to be the speech Xavier gave at the end of 150, "And the worst thing you ever did was come back, Erik. Magneto had become a legend in death, an ispiration for change. Now look at you--just another foolish and self-important old man, with outdated thoughts in his head. You have nothing this new generation of mutants wants...except your face on a T-shirt. They have ideas of their own now. Perhaps it's time we put away the old dreams, the old manifestos...and just listened for a while. Your way will never work, Erik. This can't go on. I thik you've had enough. I think we've all had enough."

If this isn't direct critisism of Magento's forwards and backwards character progression/regression, as well as practically specifically adressing fan complaints about lack of new characters, then I don't know what is.

As a straight fiction story, I don't think it played out as too compelling or entertaining, but those are themes I wholly endorse, which in turn made it compelling and entertaining to me.

Also, in issue 149 when Magneto has his conversation with Xorn(himself), Xorn says, "You made Xorn too well--in the image of your idealism, your strength, your wisdom."

I really liked that line because as it stands, I feel that it is completely true of Morrison himself. I thought Xorn was too good of a character to turn out to be a villain. This is further shown by Ernst saying she missed Xorn and liked him so much, which is also a lamentation from many of the fans I believe. ;)
I loved all of the stuff you've mentioned. Planet X was definitely among my top favorite Morrison arcs since the characterization was just great on so many levels.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Yeap.

One of the great things about the Magneto being Xorn revelation is that he masterminded the whole thing. He's usually known for being a good schemer but this one was one of his boldest moves yet. The other thing that added to the beauty of it for me was that even after all that planning he overlooked one little thing, his own flaw of being corrupted and addicted to kick. Now generally one would think this is something well beneath him but he falls into that path because:

1) He was too addicted to the power of being in control as well as the benefit of having his powers enhanced greatly despite his deteriorating mental health (brought up recently) and...


That's what made it so unbelievable to me. Magneto being controlled by a lesser being and than getting addicted to a drug he would most likely use on his greatest enemies first? Doesn't add up and takes away from the great Magneto stragedies of the past.

Bizarro: Those comments made by Jean and Xavier were the ultimate mockery of Magneto's importance in history. Nothing to highlighted or praised. Basically, the whole make Magneto a drugged up 60s recast of his villainous beginnings is a insult to all true Magneto fans.

[Jake V]

That's what made it so unbelievable to me. Magneto being controlled by a lesser being and than getting addicted to a drug he would most likely use on his greatest enemies first? Doesn't add up and takes away from the great Magneto stragedies of the past.

Bizarro: Those comments made by Jean and Xavier were the ultimate mockery of Magneto's importance in history. Nothing to highlighted or praised. Basically, the whole make Magneto a drugged up 60s recast of his villainous beginnings is a insult to all true Magneto fans.
Why would you assume that a being that has existed from the creation of earth onwards would be a "lesser being"?

Or is that just your inner magneto fanboy putting your favorite character abolve all others in the face of facts.

[TheWolfOfAsgard]

Maybe Magneto thought he wouldn't get addicted. Wouldn't be the first time someone tried a drug and ended up being hooked. True, I've always thought Magneto had a hell of a strong will but that doesn't guarentee he could stop from being hooked.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Why would you assume that a being that has existed from the creation of earth onwards would be a "lesser being"?

Or is that just your inner magneto fanboy putting your favorite character abolve all others in the face of facts.

Well, would Sublime try to confront Magneto directly? Of course not. Is he going to outsmart Magneto? Of course not. But to make a Morrison story relevant and controversial? Sure.

My inner fanboy was disgusted with the end of Eve of Destruction but Planet X? It's truly a joke. Magneto is underwritten, his dialogue was meant as a joke, his intelligence was underwhelmed, and he ends his plans by just standing there and letting his enemies get the drop on him right in front of NY? WTF? Horrible. Absolutely horrible.

Wolf: When has Magneto, in the history of his characterization, shown any SORT of movement towards drug use or the like? He uses technoolgy as his insurance policy in his plans but drugs? Highly out of character and extremely ridiculous. But I forgot...Sublime WANTED him to do it. Nice cover up for Morrison.

[TheWolfOfAsgard]

Wolf: When has Magneto, in the history of his characterization, shown any SORT of movement towards drug use or the like? He uses technoolgy as his insurance policy in his plans but drugs? Highly out of character and extremely ridiculous. But I forgot...Sublime WANTED him to do it. Nice cover up for Morrison.


Look at most drug users in real life. Is it in character for a mother or father of 4 to get hooked on meth? Is it in character for a cop to get hooked on the cocaine he's busting? Drug use is by nature out of character for a majority of people who end up getting hooked.

I admit I can't see Magneto doing drugs but then again I can't see a mother neglecting her child because she's strung out. Whatever the end jusitification for his character using drugs, the fact that he got hooked is not that impossible. At least for me. Overall I didn't like the way Magneto was protrayed in Planet X but the drug thing is plausible. Far fetched? Yes. A tool to move the story along? Defintiely. But IMO it could happen due in part the characteristic arrogance that Magneto has to most non-mutant things. "I'm better than them so anything that affects them like that won't do the same to me."

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Look at most drug users in real life. Is it in character for a mother or father of 4 to get hooked on meth? Is it in character for a cop to get hooked on the cocaine he's busting? Drug use is by nature out of character for a majority of people who end up getting hooked.

I admit I can't see Magneto doing drugs but then again I can't see a mother neglecting her child because she's strung out. Whatever the end jusitification for his character using drugs, the fact that he got hooked is not that impossible. At least for me. Overall I didn't like the way Magneto was protrayed in Planet X but the drug thing is plausible. Far fetched? Yes. A tool to move the story along? Defintiely. But IMO it could happen due in part the characteristic arrogance that Magneto has to most non-mutant things. "I'm better than them so anything that affects them like that won't do the same to me."

Well that's TRULY reaching though. And your last line is more along the lines of Sebastian Shaw, not Magnus. Magneto is always plotting on mutant progress or making a public exhibition to move his agenda along. Magneto's ego and arrogance has never skewed his intelligence though. That's why I can't see the drug thing. Just can't buy it.

[TheWolfOfAsgard]

Well that's TRULY reaching though. And your last line is more along the lines of Sebastian Shaw, not Magnus. Magneto is always plotting on mutant progress or making a public exhibition to move his agenda along. Magneto's ego and arrogance has never skewed his intelligence though. That's why I can't see the drug thing. Just can't buy it.


And thats cool. Our opinions don't have to agree but at least you listen and read and don't blow up when someone questions the integrity of a character you like. I can't go to the Avengers forum cause a lot of people seem to be like that.

:D

[Will.S]

That's what made it so unbelievable to me. Magneto being controlled by a lesser being and than getting addicted to a drug he would most likely use on his greatest enemies first? Doesn't add up and takes away from the great Magneto stragedies of the past.
It doesn't seem all that different from the time he was "addicted" to Fabian Cortez.

Emma was also on the Kick as well as the students.

[Alan2099]

Look at most drug users in real life. Is it in character for a mother or father of 4 to get hooked on meth? Is it in character for a cop to get hooked on the cocaine he's busting? Drug use is by nature out of character for a majority of people who end up getting hooked.

I admit I can't see Magneto doing drugs but then again I can't see a mother neglecting her child because she's strung out. Whatever the end jusitification for his character using drugs, the fact that he got hooked is not that impossible. At least for me. Overall I didn't like the way Magneto was protrayed in Planet X but the drug thing is plausible. Far fetched? Yes. A tool to move the story along? Defintiely. But IMO it could happen due in part the characteristic arrogance that Magneto has to most non-mutant things. "I'm better than them so anything that affects them like that won't do the same to me."
My siganture sums up my feelings about that part.

[atoningunifex]

Just a clarifier: Kick wasn't a drug like heroin or crack. Kick was a drug that increased a mutant's power exponentially. It was also concentrated Sublime. Magneto decided to try it to boost his powers. And once he did he fell under Sublime's influence. Sublime did not influence him to take the drug. Magneto took it on his own (no doubt at the urging of Esme) in order to increase his power.

And on top of that: what kidn of mental state must Magneto have been in? In terms of the comic book it had been a school year since the destruction of Genosha. Mags had just seen his entire kingdom wiped out. He'd seen mutants slaughtered. How does that change someone? How does he cope? In Magneto's case he assumed a new identity and infiltrated Xavier's in order to once again attack Charles and the X-men. But this time he was planning farther and nastier. In order to do this he created the persona of Xorn. Xorn was basically what Magneto thought he'd be like if he embraced Charles' vision more closely.

Magneto's plan should have worked. But like all comic book villains he has a flaw. And his flaw was trying too hard and losing control.

Magneto trying something new to increase his advantage? Yeah, that's actually something Magneto would do. Magneto thinking he was strong enough to keep absolute control over it? yeah, that is something Magneto would do.

He was wrong. He couldn't control it. He didn't completely succumb to Sublime. But the fight between him and Sublime pretty much cracked his control.

[BizarroBeachHead]

That's what made it so unbelievable to me. Magneto being controlled by a lesser being and than getting addicted to a drug he would most likely use on his greatest enemies first? Doesn't add up and takes away from the great Magneto stragedies of the past.

Bizarro: Those comments made by Jean and Xavier were the ultimate mockery of Magneto's importance in history. Nothing to highlighted or praised. Basically, the whole make Magneto a drugged up 60s recast of his villainous beginnings is a insult to all true Magneto fans.
I'm afraid I don't see how it's insulting to true Magneto fans. Jean and Xavier's diolague echoed almost exactly how I feel about Magneto. How many times has Magneto died? How many times has he come back with a slightly different edge or agenda? How many times has an editor or writer been forced to come up with some convoluted reason to explain why Magneto is acting the way is is? These are the kinds of things that people accept because it's a comic book, but that doesn't make it good fiction.

It may sound stupid, but I perfer writers to writer forwards, not backwards. Coincidentally, thats why I origianly first hated Planet X, until I reread and understood it.

[Will.S]

Just a clarifier: Kick wasn't a drug like heroin or crack. Kick was a drug that increased a mutant's power exponentially. It was also concentrated Sublime. Magneto decided to try it to boost his powers. And once he did he fell under Sublime's influence. Sublime did not influence him to take the drug. Magneto took it on his own (no doubt at the urging of Esme) in order to increase his power.

And on top of that: what kidn of mental state must Magneto have been in? In terms of the comic book it had been a school year since the destruction of Genosha. Mags had just seen his entire kingdom wiped out. He'd seen mutants slaughtered. How does that change someone? How does he cope? In Magneto's case he assumed a new identity and infiltrated Xavier's in order to once again attack Charles and the X-men. But this time he was planning farther and nastier. In order to do this he created the persona of Xorn. Xorn was basically what Magneto thought he'd be like if he embraced Charles' vision more closely.

Magneto's plan should have worked. But like all comic book villains he has a flaw. And his flaw was trying too hard and losing control.

Magneto trying something new to increase his advantage? Yeah, that's actually something Magneto would do. Magneto thinking he was strong enough to keep absolute control over it? yeah, that is something Magneto would do.

He was wrong. He couldn't control it. He didn't completely succumb to Sublime. But the fight between him and Sublime pretty much cracked his control.
Ding ding ding!

You know, I've done research on multiple personalities and I've realized something just now (I'm a bit too late on the ball on this one though). Since Magneto had experienced both Eve of Destruction and E is for Extinction firsthand, the Xorn personality is an escape as well as a coping mechanism for dealing with these traumatic events. One cannot just develop a multiple personality without going through a traumatic experience beforehand.

It explains why the Xorn standalone issue was so in depth, he believes so much that he is the character that he acts it out. It also seems that Magneto was able to revert back and forth between both characters to plan schemes so he never saw that the Xorn personality was a problem until Planet X when all things came to a head.

The only issue that really comes in question is the Annual but from what I've heard it wasn't Morrison's fault and more of Marvel itself.

[xakko]

Ding ding ding!

You know, I've done research on multiple personalities and I've realized something just now (I'm a bit too late on the ball on this one though). Since Magneto had experienced both Eve of Destruction and E is for Extinction firsthand, the Xorn personality is an escape as well as a coping mechanism for dealing with these traumatic events. One cannot just develop a multiple personality without going through a traumatic experience beforehand.

It explains why the Xorn standalone issue was so in depth, he believes so much that he is the character that he acts it out. It also seems that Magneto was able to revert back and forth between both characters to plan schemes so he never saw that the Xorn personality was a problem until Planet X when all things came to a head.

The only issue that really comes in question is the Annual but from what I've heard it wasn't Morrison's fault and more of Marvel itself.
And somehow he survived concentration camps with just anger management issues? I'm not buying it.

Magneto had been through trauma his whole life and yet suddenly one event pushes him over the edge that he goes and creates a backstory, learns Chinese enough to fool a native, develops technology he'd never had before, and attacks someone not responsible for his trauma??? Sorry, as I said, no sale.

Magneto also has one of the most indomitable wills in the Marvel Universe, able to fight the greatest telepath on earth despite lacking telepathic power.

Me, I'm betting the Celestials would've disinfected the Earth of Sublime long ago if it had existed with a giant can of Lysol. They wouldn't allow it to mess with their experiments.

[Will.S]

And somehow he survived concentration camps with just anger management issues? I'm not buying it.
I'm not ignoring this as a factor. It heavily contributed to make him into the man he was going to be.

Magneto had been through trauma his whole life and yet suddenly one event pushes him over the edge that he goes and creates a backstory, learns Chinese enough to fool a native, develops technology he'd never had before, and attacks someone not responsible for his trauma??? Sorry, as I said, no sale.
This is the same man who was also Erik Magnus Lehnsherr, Michael Xavier, Erik The Red, and the White King. While the Xorn identity is much more far gone than the others, in this case Magneto went through two extreme defeats one at the hands of the X-men and the other at the hand of a Sentinel (Cassandra Nova's intention of course). What happened in Genosha for him could be as equally traumatic as his time in the concentration camps.

It was again, another case of seeing his people going through a mass genocide.

Magneto also has one of the most indomitable wills in the Marvel Universe, able to fight the greatest telepath on earth despite lacking telepathic power.Having an indominable will does not make him infalliable. Ask Dr. Doom, he's tasted defeat quite a few times.

[atoningunifex]

Magneto had been through trauma his whole life and yet suddenly one event pushes him over the edge that he goes and creates a backstory, learns Chinese enough to fool a native, develops technology he'd never had before, and attacks someone not responsible for his trauma??? Sorry, as I said, no sale.


Yeah, but his entire adult life has been making sure that waht happened to him as a kid never happens to his fellow mutants.

And he sat there in a wheelchair while Sentinels killed 16 million mutants in front of his eyes. And he survived.

From his point of view this was an attack by humans (the ones who use the setninels the most) on mutants. He didn't know that Cassandra Nova was the one who sicced the Sentinels on Genosha. SO he came up with a disguise, learned Chinese, infiltrated Xavier's to recruit a new Brotherhood from there, tried to eliminate the X-Men so he could take over the world. And make sure the humans never did it again.

All this "out of character" and "magneto would never do this" stuff doesn't seem to take into consideration that what he has feared for fifty-plus years happened. For us as readers a bunch of faceless mutants got killed and there was some property damage. For Magneto it was a man-made disaster about 2 and a half times as deadly as the Holocaust and as destructive as Hurricane Katrina. For us it doesn't matter becuase it isn't real. For him, inside a fictional universe, it's his biggest nightmare come to life only worse than he ever imagined.

[TinMan]

Yeah, but his entire adult life has been making sure that waht happened to him as a kid never happens to his fellow mutants.

And he sat there in a wheelchair while Sentinels killed 16 million mutants in front of his eyes. And he survived.

From his point of view this was an attack by humans (the ones who use the setninels the most) on mutants. He didn't know that Cassandra Nova was the one who sicced the Sentinels on Genosha. SO he came up with a disguise, learned Chinese, infiltrated Xavier's to recruit a new Brotherhood from there, tried to eliminate the X-Men so he could take over the world. And make sure the humans never did it again.

All this "out of character" and "magneto would never do this" stuff doesn't seem to take into consideration that what he has feared for fifty-plus years happened. For us as readers a bunch of faceless mutants got killed and there was some property damage. For Magneto it was a man-made disaster about 2 and a half times as deadly as the Holocaust and as destructive as Hurricane Katrina. For us it doesn't matter becuase it isn't real. For him, inside a fictional universe, it's his biggest nightmare come to life only worse than he ever imagined.

Bravo, great post dude! I have to agree with you 100% on these statements, I was actually gonna post the same thing basically.

Magneto's response to the Genosha massacre makes a lot of sense, the man went through many, many, many trauma's in his life. Then, when he finally had a "kingdom" where mutants could live peacefully amongst one another, they all get wiped out like stomping a swarm of ants with a combat boot. Thats enough to make a man snap. I really don't care who you are, anyone, even in real life, is susceptable to have a personallity split or goin freakin wacko. It just takes the right circumstances to cause it to happen, and the causes are different for every individual. So I really don't find it to be completely out of character.

As for the creation of Xorn and infilltrating the X-Men, that is a bit out of character, but that can also be written off as Sublime's influence. Correct me if I'm wrong but Magneto was using Kick before he ever became Xorn, right? (I haven't read all of Morrison's run cause it came out just after I quit reading comics, which I've recently started again, but I have read some of the synopses on Uncannyxmen.net) Now, if that is the case I kinda look at it this way; at first Mags used Kick to enhance his power, because it felt good and made him exponentially more powerful, but over the course of using it Sublime started getting a stronger foothold in his mind thus gaining more influence. So through Sublime's influence he became "addicted" to Kick because in all actuallity the "addiction" was just Sublime influencing the mutants mind to use more so he could eventually take complete control of the host body. But because of the trauma suffered over Genosha Magneto was unstable, and as Sublime started gaining more control it caused Erik's personallity to split and he created the Xorn persona. Through Xorn, Erik was able to be the person that he was wondering if he should have been, IE more pacifist in his stance like Xavier, because perhaps had he been the destruction of Genosha never would have taken place. Now, being that his personallity truly split, the Xorn personallity was actually Magneto's kind, pacifist side while the "Magneto" side was actually the wacked out Sublime influenced side. This also explains why he would go through the trouble to infiltrate the X-Men; Sublime had a foothold in Magnus' mind so he had some control and we all know that Sublime likes to play the subversive game whereas the true "Magneto" is a much more straight forward man. Thus this can explain why his infiltration and deception were "out" of character but also "in" character for that point in time.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

It doesn't seem all that different from the time he was "addicted" to Fabian Cortez.

Emma was also on the Kick as well as the students.

He wasn't addicted to Fabien. Cortez fed him the lines that he was healing him. If Magnto KNEW the effects were harmful, he would of killed Cortez much sooner.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

I'm afraid I don't see how it's insulting to true Magneto fans. Jean and Xavier's diolague echoed almost exactly how I feel about Magneto. How many times has Magneto died? How many times has he come back with a slightly different edge or agenda? How many times has an editor or writer been forced to come up with some convoluted reason to explain why Magneto is acting the way is is? These are the kinds of things that people accept because it's a comic book, but that doesn't make it good fiction.

It may sound stupid, but I perfer writers to writer forwards, not backwards. Coincidentally, thats why I origianly first hated Planet X, until I reread and understood it.

Echoed what you thought? You're one lone fan. I read it and felt sick to my stomach. It was the definition of mockery. Of taking away the characterization of a character of the last 20 years. Destruct his methods and make him unfamilar. Hardly good reading. He has come back several times with the goal of uniting a mutant empire to benefit their survival from their racist human cousins. That's his thought patterns. If it was technolgy and not Kick, it would of been a legit fit for Magneto, instead of the farce it became.

Xakko seems to get it though. How does one with Magneto's will, a man who has survived the Holocaust and his family's death in such a horrific matter, just turn to drugs ALL OF A SUDDEN to cope with what's been haunting him his whole life. He would rather stragetize and move forward with plans for a mutant brotherhood. I have no idea WHY Morrison wanted to make Magneto weak and insecure, question his charisma over other mutants, and try to make it seem as if mutants didn't want his way no more. Hell, the WHOLE build up was the "Magneto Was Right" slogan and shirts that mutants around the world were flocking to. He was the great mutant leader who went all out in Genosha in fighting the humans and paid for his dream with his life. Why turn that progression into a mocking twist at the end of #150? And why during the whole crossover was Magneto, perhaps the greatest mutant leader in history, not able to lead a bunch of NY mutants? Do you see what I mean? Alot of it is not completely thought out. Now, Morrison tried covering it all up with Kick and Sublime but considering Magneto's will has held Avalon up from pure concentration, stopped all the X-teams in one swoop from using their powers, and was never able to be cracked directly telepathically by Xavier. Magneto has the powers of a God. That's why their is SO much debate and anger over his choices within the X-Men. He has the most power to do right and "good" for mutantkind but his methods are extreme. Why is one that powerful, especially after Dark Seduction, trying Kick and not just using gases or technological domination over the planet like he's done in the past?

[streator]

Echoed what you thought? You're one lone fan. I read it and felt sick to my stomach. It was the definition of mockery. Of taking away the characterization of a character of the last 20 years. Destruct his methods and make him unfamilar. Hardly good reading. He has come back several times with the goal of uniting a mutant empire to benefit their survival from their racist human cousins. That's his thought patterns. If it was technolgy and not Kick, it would of been a legit fit for Magneto, instead of the farce it became.

Xakko seems to get it though. How does one with Magneto's will, a man who has survived the Holocaust and his family's death in such a horrific matter, just turn to drugs ALL OF A SUDDEN to cope with what's been haunting him his whole life. He would rather stragetize and move forward with plans for a mutant brotherhood. I have no idea WHY Morrison wanted to make Magneto weak and insecure, question his charisma over other mutants, and try to make it seem as if mutants didn't want his way no more. Hell, the WHOLE build up was the "Magneto Was Right" slogan and shirts that mutants around the world were flocking to. He was the great mutant leader who went all out in Genosha in fighting the humans and paid for his dream with his life. Why turn that progression into a mocking twist at the end of #150? And why during the whole crossover was Magneto, perhaps the greatest mutant leader in history, not able to lead a bunch of NY mutants? Do you see what I mean? Alot of it is not completely thought out. Now, Morrison tried covering it all up with Kick and Sublime but considering Magneto's will has held Avalon up from pure concentration, stopped all the X-teams in one swoop from using their powers, and was never able to be cracked directly telepathically by Xavier. Magneto has the powers of a God. That's why their is SO much debate and anger over his choices within the X-Men. He has the most power to do right and "good" for mutantkind but his methods are extreme. Why is one that powerful, especially after Dark Seduction, trying Kick and not just using gases or technological domination over the planet like he's done in the past?
magneto has been shown to be dependent on other things in the past. you could easily argue that his dependency on cortez was similar to his use of kick. the stuff about the mutants in new york not following him was pretty much explained in nxm 150. they wanted "magneto", the poster-boy, the great mutant that they have all been reading up on. magneto/xorn, the reality, was not what they had hoped. in short, "magneto" had become something more than the actual person, as a following. the idea of magneto being dead in genosha meant more to the mutant population than the actual magneto trying to takeover nyc. to quote from uncannyxmen.net's issue summary:
"And the worst thing he ever did, a voice announces, was to come back. Turning to the voice, Magneto sees the rest of the X-Men, with Fantomex and the remaining Brotherhood. Continuing, Xavier tells Magneto that he had become a legend in death, an inspiration for change. Now look at him… just another foolish and self-important old man, with outdated thoughts in his head. He has nothing this new generation of mutants wants… except for his face on a T-shirt.

They have ideas of their own now, Xavier continues. Perhaps it’s time they put away the old dreams, the old manifestos… and just listened for a while. His way, Xavier tells Magneto, will never work. This can’t go on. He’s had enough. He thinks they’ve all had enough."

[BizarroBeachHead]

Echoed what you thought? You're one lone fan. I read it and felt sick to my stomach. It was the definition of mockery. Of taking away the characterization of a character of the last 20 years. Destruct his methods and make him unfamilar. Hardly good reading. He has come back several times with the goal of uniting a mutant empire to benefit their survival from their racist human cousins. That's his thought patterns. If it was technolgy and not Kick, it would of been a legit fit for Magneto, instead of the farce it became.

Xakko seems to get it though. How does one with Magneto's will, a man who has survived the Holocaust and his family's death in such a horrific matter, just turn to drugs ALL OF A SUDDEN to cope with what's been haunting him his whole life. He would rather stragetize and move forward with plans for a mutant brotherhood. I have no idea WHY Morrison wanted to make Magneto weak and insecure, question his charisma over other mutants, and try to make it seem as if mutants didn't want his way no more. Hell, the WHOLE build up was the "Magneto Was Right" slogan and shirts that mutants around the world were flocking to. He was the great mutant leader who went all out in Genosha in fighting the humans and paid for his dream with his life. Why turn that progression into a mocking twist at the end of #150? And why during the whole crossover was Magneto, perhaps the greatest mutant leader in history, not able to lead a bunch of NY mutants? Do you see what I mean? Alot of it is not completely thought out. Now, Morrison tried covering it all up with Kick and Sublime but considering Magneto's will has held Avalon up from pure concentration, stopped all the X-teams in one swoop from using their powers, and was never able to be cracked directly telepathically by Xavier. Magneto has the powers of a God. That's why their is SO much debate and anger over his choices within the X-Men. He has the most power to do right and "good" for mutantkind but his methods are extreme. Why is one that powerful, especially after Dark Seduction, trying Kick and not just using gases or technological domination over the planet like he's done in the past?

Okay, either you're selecting what posts you read or you are just ignoring countless arguments against you. As far as the tragedy that's been haunting Magneto all his life, atoningunifux adressed it when he said this:
Yeah, but his entire adult life has been making sure that waht happened to him as a kid never happens to his fellow mutants.

And he sat there in a wheelchair while Sentinels killed 16 million mutants in front of his eyes. And he survived.

From his point of view this was an attack by humans (the ones who use the setninels the most) on mutants. He didn't know that Cassandra Nova was the one who sicced the Sentinels on Genosha. SO he came up with a disguise, learned Chinese, infiltrated Xavier's to recruit a new Brotherhood from there, tried to eliminate the X-Men so he could take over the world. And make sure the humans never did it again.

All this "out of character" and "magneto would never do this" stuff doesn't seem to take into consideration that what he has feared for fifty-plus years happened. For us as readers a bunch of faceless mutants got killed and there was some property damage. For Magneto it was a man-made disaster about 2 and a half times as deadly as the Holocaust and as destructive as Hurricane Katrina. For us it doesn't matter becuase it isn't real. For him, inside a fictional universe, it's his biggest nightmare come to life only worse than he ever imagined.
Either you are selective about which events you think should "count" as characterization for Magneto, or you are just discounting everything Morisson did.

What I don't understand is how it would have been legit if he were using technology instead of Kick. That one fact makes ALL the difference in the world. I don't think you quite understand what Kick is. Once again, I'm going to point you back to atoningunifex:
Just a clarifier: Kick wasn't a drug like heroin or crack. Kick was a drug that increased a mutant's power exponentially. It was also concentrated Sublime. Magneto decided to try it to boost his powers. And once he did he fell under Sublime's influence. Sublime did not influence him to take the drug. Magneto took it on his own (no doubt at the urging of Esme) in order to increase his power.

And on top of that: what kidn of mental state must Magneto have been in? In terms of the comic book it had been a school year since the destruction of Genosha. Mags had just seen his entire kingdom wiped out. He'd seen mutants slaughtered. How does that change someone? How does he cope? In Magneto's case he assumed a new identity and infiltrated Xavier's in order to once again attack Charles and the X-men. But this time he was planning farther and nastier. In order to do this he created the persona of Xorn. Xorn was basically what Magneto thought he'd be like if he embraced Charles' vision more closely.

Magneto's plan should have worked. But like all comic book villains he has a flaw. And his flaw was trying too hard and losing control.

Magneto trying something new to increase his advantage? Yeah, that's actually something Magneto would do. Magneto thinking he was strong enough to keep absolute control over it? yeah, that is something Magneto would do.

He was wrong. He couldn't control it. He didn't completely succumb to Sublime. But the fight between him and Sublime pretty much cracked his control.

Also, I don't see how me being a "lone" fan discounts my opinion. Obviously I'm not lone if there are many other people in this thread who agree with me. All I'm saying is that I really related with the theme of the story. You're right though, it WAS mockery. It wasn't taking away from his characterization, it was mocking it. One of the theme's I got from the story was that Morisson didn't MAKE Magneto unfamiliar, he pointing out that he already WAS unfamiliar. Obviously, from your staunch defending of Magneto, you have enjoyed everything that has been done with and for Magneto other than Planet X. Thats great if you like everything else, but not everyone shares your enthusiasm, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it here.

[Tobias March]

Obviously, from your staunch defending of Magneto, you have enjoyed everything that has been done with and for Magneto other than Planet X. Thats great if you like everything else, but not everyone shares your enthusiasm, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it here.


Good point. And on the 'Magneto would never use Kick', argument. Well I agree that Cortez counts as a precedent. Here once again his powers were being increased, he believed and he quickly became dependent upon Fabian. Additionally Mags has repeatedly shown a tendency to retreat from reality. His nobility as sketched out over the years has generally appeared to me (yes this is my opinion, but I'm giving reasons here, y'know, like in an argument) as a projection of his own arrogance and refusal to accept reality. When he is pushed beyond a certain point, he flees. Running to the Savage Land. Running to Haven/Asteroid M.

Magneto is still, to my mind, the 'noble villain', during Planet X. His victory speech over Xavier is hilarious and frankly his plan was brilliant. However, I feel it's also important to note that the man is completely deluded.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Okay, either you're selecting what posts you read or you are just ignoring countless arguments against you. As far as the tragedy that's been haunting Magneto all his life, atoningunifux adressed it when he said this:

Either you are selective about which events you think should "count" as characterization for Magneto, or you are just discounting everything Morisson did.

What I don't understand is how it would have been legit if he were using technology instead of Kick. That one fact makes ALL the difference in the world. I don't think you quite understand what Kick is. Once again, I'm going to point you back to atoningunifex:


Also, I don't see how me being a "lone" fan discounts my opinion. Obviously I'm not lone if there are many other people in this thread who agree with me. All I'm saying is that I really related with the theme of the story. You're right though, it WAS mockery. It wasn't taking away from his characterization, it was mocking it. One of the theme's I got from the story was that Morisson didn't MAKE Magneto unfamiliar, he pointing out that he already WAS unfamiliar. Obviously, from your staunch defending of Magneto, you have enjoyed everything that has been done with and for Magneto other than Planet X. Thats great if you like everything else, but not everyone shares your enthusiasm, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it here.

All you need to understand is that I read everything you said and responded accordingly. I don't really like talking about Morrison honestly. His run was one of the worst I've read in years. While it gets constant praise around here while Claremont's run on Excalibur is spat on, I see it much differently. He had the X-Men's greatest enemy making jokes, unsure of himself, and giving up at the end when he had certain victory. It was pathetic.

aton? He/she has their opinion and I have mine. Because it was answered by her doesn't necessarily mean it was addressed. And why would you say I don't understand that Kick is a power booster? So what. When has Magneto, in HIS HISTORY, ever relied on drugs? Why after all these years and traumas would he rely on such a miserable device for more power? It's silly.

And how was Magneto unfamilar? The REAL unfamilar part of the Magneto stories of the 90s were that they were all loaded with PIS. Magneto, on countless occasions, had the X-Men and Xavier conquered. Beaten. Definitely defeated but because he's a villain, the result was different. The ending of Planet X is just as questionable as any of those storyline endings of the past. You know? The ones that everyone on the X-board constantly spit on to berate to some fact of Magneto being overused and there "needing" to be some other top villain. It was mockery and when you mock the best villain in X-history, the character that carried the X-Universe over the last 20 years, you're ending your run on a terrible note. No wonder you end up with faulty stories like Vargas vs Psylocke or a retcon character like Cassandra Nova showing up out of the blue. Morrison had justifications for everyone but when it's time for Magneto to return...let's make him uncharismatic, delusional, a fake aberration of his brilliant self, and a mutant that has been scorned by his endless followers around the world. Morrison's premise heading into #146 was great but after that issue, it all went downhill.

Yes..of course, Magneto would of responded to what happened in Genosha but to resort to drugs and murdering fellow mutants for having their own opinions after he has the advantage(Basilak in #149)? It's just TERRIBLE deconstructive characterization. Quite frankly, it was embarrassing to read as a X-fan. The sooner that trash is retconned, the better.

[streator]

aton? He/she has their opinion and I have mine. Because it was answered by her doesn't necessarily mean it was addressed. And why would you say I don't understand that Kick is a power booster? So what. When has Magneto, in HIS HISTORY, ever relied on drugs? Why after all these years and traumas would he rely on such a miserable device for more power? It's silly.



he relied on cortez to boost his power, which can easily be equated to relying on a drug to do the same thing. substitute cortez for kick, and the actions still have the exact same effects. magneto using something to boost his power, to the point where he is arguably reliant on the something (cortez, kick).

[Erik Lehnsherr]

he relied on cortez to boost his power, which can easily be equated to relying on a drug to do the same thing. substitute cortez for kick, and the actions still have the exact same effects. magneto using something to boost his power, to the point where he is arguably reliant on the something (cortez, kick).

Your thinking of the cartoon. In the comics, Magneto was injured and Cortez was tricking Magneto into thinking he was healing him. When the jig was up by X-Men #3, Cortez fled for his life and tried usurping the Acolytes from the missing Magneto.

[Dan Apodaca]

I don't really like talking about Morrison honestly.

Then why bother posting in the thread? Either you're a masochist, or you really do like talking about him.

aton? He/she has their opinion and I have mine. Because it was answered by her doesn't necessarily mean it was addressed. And why would you say I don't understand that Kick is a power booster? So what. When has Magneto, in HIS HISTORY, ever relied on drugs? Why after all these years and traumas would he rely on such a miserable device for more power? It's silly.

What he's been telling you, which you're not picking up on, is that the story was not about Magneto RELYING on kick. He was USING kick. He came across something that could make him stronger, and he tried it. That makes perfect Magneto sense.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Then why bother posting in the thread? Either you're a masochist, or you really do like talking about him.



What he's been telling you, which you're not picking up on, is that the story was not about Magneto RELYING on kick. He was USING kick. He came across something that could make him stronger, and he tried it. That makes perfect Magneto sense.

Why do most of the Anti-Claremont preachers post in his thread or the never ending moaners cry about the House of M? Explain that one first. And him USING kick is still NOTHING Magneto would ever do. Technology yes but drugs? Impossible.

[DDM]

he relied on cortez to boost his power, which can easily be equated to relying on a drug to do the same thing. substitute cortez for kick, and the actions still have the exact same effects. magneto using something to boost his power, to the point where he is arguably reliant on the something (cortez, kick).

Cortez's mutant power is to boost other mutants' powers (he boosted Psylocke's powers in X-Men #2 to make her psi-shields crash as she read every thought on Genosha; however, Psylocke used her boosted telepathy to attack Magneto). Cortez tricked Magneto in believing he was curing his wounds when he was doing nothing of a sort.

[Tobias March]

Cortez's mutant power is to boost other mutants' powers (he boosted Psylocke's powers in X-Men #2 to make her psi-shields crash as she read every thought on Genosha; however, Psylocke used her boosted telepathy to attack Magneto). Cortez tricked Magneto in believing he was curing his wounds when he was doing nothing of a sort.

Yes but nevertheless Magneto became dependent upon that illusion of being cured and that is streator's point.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Cortez's mutant power is to boost other mutants' powers (he boosted Psylocke's powers in X-Men #2 to make her psi-shields crash as she read every thought on Genosha; however, Psylocke used her boosted telepathy to attack Magneto). Cortez tricked Magneto in believing he was curing his wounds when he was doing nothing of a sort.

That's all that needs to be said. :D

[Dan Apodaca]

And him USING kick is still NOTHING Magneto would ever do. Technology yes but drugs? Impossible.

Why? Show me someplace where Magneto says he would never use drugs.

You need to face facts. Magneto DID use drugs. Therefore, he would. Whether you want it that way or not, it's what happened. I think Jean Grey should have died the first time, but she didn't. Does that mean that Jean Grey would never be able to be resurrected? No.

It sounds to me like you have some external issues with drug use that really have nothing to do with the character.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Why? Show me someplace where Magneto says he would never use drugs.

You need to face facts. Magneto DID use drugs. Therefore, he would. Whether you want it that way or not, it's what happened. I think Jean Grey should have died the first time, but she didn't. Does that mean that Jean Grey would never be able to be resurrected? No.

It sounds to me like you have some external issues with drug use that really have nothing to do with the character.

And I don't need to face nothing. Xorneto used drugs and that's that. Magneto was in Genosha recovering and eventually rebuilding with Xavier. Keep in mind that Marvel is, as we speak, righting the wrongs of Planet X, well, except for Jean being killed off. But she was due for some time off since her only contribution to the books was that endless Phoenix diatribe that was circular all around.

[Titan76]

And I don't need to face nothing. Xorneto used drugs and that's that. Magneto was in Genosha recovering and eventually rebuilding with Xavier. Keep in mind that Marvel is, as we speak, righting the wrongs of Planet X, well, except for Jean being killed off. But she was due for some time off since her only contribution to the books was that endless Phoenix diatribe that was circular all around.
Just so you know Magneto did use Cortez's powers again when he took over Genosha and only stop because Polaris came to the island and he used her powers to kept himself strong. Morrison gets alot of praise because he bought the X-men back to the top of the charts again and made things interesting again, unlike the late 90's stories which suck. And Jean's only contribution to the book was not just the Phoenix stuff. She was the one running the school and X-corp when Xavier was gone and did it better at it imo and was the one who was going to take over after Xavier was going to step down. And lot of fans still like the Phoenix effect, why do you think the mini sold so dam well and is getting a sequel?

[DDM]

And lot of fans still like the Phoenix effect, why do you think the mini sold so dam well and is getting a sequel?

Greg Land's art sold Phoenix Endsong.

[Titan76]

Greg Land's art sold Phoenix Endsong.
Greg Land was not a huge name until after Phoenix Endsong. And the same could be said for all the books Jim Lee draws. No Phoenix does have a lot of fans and the mini prove it.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Just so you know Magneto did use Cortez's powers again when he took over Genosha and only stop because Polaris came to the island and he used her powers to kept himself strong. Morrison gets alot of praise because he bought the X-men back to the top of the charts again and made things interesting again, unlike the late 90's stories which suck. And Jean's only contribution to the book was not just the Phoenix stuff. She was the one running the school and X-corp when Xavier was gone and did it better at it imo and was the one who was going to take over after Xavier was going to step down. And lot of fans still like the Phoenix effect, why do you think the mini sold so dam well and is getting a sequel?

All of these constant cries over the 90s sucking is alot of Net fans BS. It wasn't that bad. Stryfe's X-Cutioner Song is better than any Cassandra Nova or Phoenix subplot Morrison ever put together. Jean's dialogue was one dimensional and uninteresting under Grant. Nothing she did really stood out to her character of the past.

As for Magneto Rex? Yes...Magneto needed to use Cortez to appear strong after he exhausted his abilities to takeover Genosha. Once that charade was over, it was time for Cortez to die. Carrion Cave in Dark Seduction gave Magneto all of his strength back and he didn't need to rely on anything. He candidly punked out the Avengers, kicked them out of Genosha, and went on with his plans as usual.

[Dan Apodaca]

All of these constant cries over the 90s sucking is alot of Net fans BS. It wasn't that bad. Stryfe's X-Cutioner Song is better than any Cassandra Nova or Phoenix subplot Morrison ever put together. Jean's dialogue was one dimensional and uninteresting under Grant. Nothing she did really stood out to her character of the past.

No, the nineties sucked. No net fan BS. Real fan opinion.

[Titan76]

All of these constant cries over the 90s sucking is alot of Net fans BS. It wasn't that bad. Stryfe's X-Cutioner Song is better than any Cassandra Nova or Phoenix subplot Morrison ever put together. Jean's dialogue was one dimensional and uninteresting under Grant. Nothing she did really stood out to her character of the past.
You mean the fact that Jean beating Cassandra Nova by putting Xavier's mind in every mutant in the world(and yes cebera did help a little)and how she beat the U-men with little effort all by herself doesn't stand out? The only thing I hated how Morrison wrote Jean was with her marriage to Scott, other then that he wrote Jean better then any other writer since Claremont's first run imo. And no 85% of the 90's stories did suck, its not just net fans saying that its a lot of fans outside the internet saying that too.

As for Magneto Rex? Yes...Magneto needed to use Cortez to appear strong after he exhausted his abilities to takeover Genosha. Once that charade was over, it was time for Cortez to die. Carrion Cave in Dark Seduction gave Magneto all of his strength back and he didn't need to rely on anything. He candidly punked out the Avengers, kicked them out of Genosha, and went on with his plans as usual.
That's correct.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

No, the nineties sucked. No net fan BS. Real fan opinion.

Until that is summed up at every single comic convention in America, it will never hold that much weight. Just a mild exaggerated generalization.

[Alan2099]

All of these constant cries over the 90s sucking is alot of Net fans BS. It wasn't that bad. Stryfe's X-Cutioner Song is better than any Cassandra Nova or Phoenix subplot Morrison ever put together. Jean's dialogue was one dimensional and uninteresting under Grant. Nothing she did really stood out to her character of the past.
I agree with this. Other than Age of Apocalypse, i don't think any X-crossover has been as good since then.

Onslaught had it's moments, but editorial decissions seemed to kill it.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

I agree with this. Other than Age of Apocalypse, i don't think any X-crossover has been as good since then.

Onslaught had it's moments, but editorial decissions seemed to kill it.

The thing about Onslaught was that there was just no logical way that assemblage of heroes should of been able to stop him. The ending of Onslaught is the personification of PIS in comics.

[dotdotdot]

I agree with this. Other than Age of Apocalypse, i don't think any X-crossover has been as good since then.

Onslaught had it's moments, but editorial decissions seemed to kill it.

Xecutioner's song was awful

[Alan2099]

Xecutioner's song was awful
Why do you say that?

[Dan Apodaca]

Until that is summed up at every single comic convention in America, it will never hold that much weight. Just a mild exaggerated generalization.

There's no exageration and no generalization. I'm a fan. I'm telling you my opinion. The nineties sucked. The plots were tangled, the characters were one-dimensional, and the art was over-sexualized and cheesy.

Besides, when has mass opinion ever dictated quality? If that were the case, Titanic would be one of the best movies of all time.

[Tobias March]

If that were the case, Titanic would be one of the best movies of all time.

Shhhhh......some people believe that ;)

[TheWolfOfAsgard]

Shhhhh......some people believe that ;)


Drown Leo!! Drown Leo drwon!

oh yeah I'm not in the theatre anymore...no use yelling it again.

[Be Stiff]

People seem to really dig on the more facistic elements of Magneto, that's sort of telling and distrubing at the same time...

[Dan Apodaca]

People seem to really dig on the more facistic elements of Magneto, that's sort of telling and distrubing at the same time...

That's a good point. Why is it that we feel the need to make our villains so villainous? So we can feel better about them getting beat to hell? Or is it that we prefer for things to be split up into simple good and evil, so we don't have to worry if we're doing the right thing?

Definitely something to think about.

[mattbib]

No, the nineties sucked. No net fan BS. Real fan opinion.Seconded. There were plenty of things I liked in the '90s (many good, many self-admittedly bad), and a stricter continuity, but the quality in the past few years, including most of Morrison's run far outweighs the X-stuff from the previous decade.
That's a good point. Why is it that we feel the need to make our villains so villainous? So we can feel better about them getting beat to hell? Or is it that we prefer for things to be split up into simple good and evil, so we don't have to worry if we're doing the right thing?
For me it depends on which villain we're talking about. For Magneto, I prever the humanized version that Claremont gave us in the early 1980s. Even though that was a retconned effect of Moira's machinations, I'm glad that's the version that was presented in the recent Excalibur series.

However, the crazed Magneto presented by Morrison was perfectly acceptable given the fact that he was on drugs and under the influence of Sublime.

Save the cold, calculating, power-mongering for someone like Doom.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Still, the 90s didn't suck because a few fans have some issues with some stories. That doesn't make Morrison the be all of the X-Universe.

[jetter_cheeze]

That doesn't make Morrison the be all of the X-Universe.

That is where the problem is.

Nobody here is saying that, yet you still seem under the impression that this is a pissing contest between morrison and everything else in the x-universe.

Morrison wrote a good story that can be analyzed on a literary basis that has merits. So his version of Magneto was off from what your impression of what Magneto should be. Seeing your handle, i can see why you want to so fight this version of the character so much.

is your goal simply to make everyone forget that Magneto appeared under the pen of Morrison? Let me tell you that no matter how Marvel choses to retcon it, many people have walked away from the x-comics thinking that it was magneto. Deal with it and move on please.

Fan loyalty is something that can be a double edged sword. On one hand a fan of Morrison could analyze his story and see how it compares with his other writings and simply present it as what happened here. The other end of the spectrum would say that only Morrison's characters are the true x-men and nothing else in the x-universe holds merit. Fan loyalty of a particular fictional character can be the same way.

I think it is obvious to some what side of the line you are on. You point has been heard and taken for what it is, please discuss the analysis of Morison's run (i honestly would like to hear your interpretations of the analysis with the whole magneto thing put to the side, it does seem to be your only hangup) or please just walk away.

[Dan Apodaca]

Still, the 90s didn't suck because a few fans have some issues with some stories. That doesn't make Morrison the be all of the X-Universe.

I don't see the connection between the two. I think you're getting a little over-zealous in your Morrison hatred, here.

[mattbib]

Still, the 90s didn't suck because a few fans have some issues with some stories.And just because you don't have issues with some of the stories doesn't mean the '90s didn't suck.

That's the beauty of opinions.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

That is where the problem is.

Nobody here is saying that, yet you still seem under the impression that this is a pissing contest between morrison and everything else in the x-universe.

Morrison wrote a good story that can be analyzed on a literary basis that has merits. So his version of Magneto was off from what your impression of what Magneto should be. Seeing your handle, i can see why you want to so fight this version of the character so much.

is your goal simply to make everyone forget that Magneto appeared under the pen of Morrison? Let me tell you that no matter how Marvel choses to retcon it, many people have walked away from the x-comics thinking that it was magneto. Deal with it and move on please.

Fan loyalty is something that can be a double edged sword. On one hand a fan of Morrison could analyze his story and see how it compares with his other writings and simply present it as what happened here. The other end of the spectrum would say that only Morrison's characters are the true x-men and nothing else in the x-universe holds merit. Fan loyalty of a particular fictional character can be the same way.

I think it is obvious to some what side of the line you are on. You point has been heard and taken for what it is, please discuss the analysis of Morison's run (i honestly would like to hear your interpretations of the analysis with the whole magneto thing put to the side, it does seem to be your only hangup) or please just walk away.

My goal is that even though Claremont is endlessingly bashed for his latest run, the Morrison run had it's faults too. Which is the reason for the retcon in the first place. It was suspicious writing and all in all, it's good to have it straightened out once and for all.

And I have moved on. Been MOVED on. The constant bitching about his fans over the Excalibur series, House of M, and anything non Morrison related are the ones who haven't moved on. Face it, whatever criticism that has been laid on Morrison, was well deserved. His mockery of Magneto needed to be cleaned up and thankfully it's happening. Enough of his errand view of Magneto and what he thinks the character should of been portrayed as despite 20 years of characterization progress.

[jetter_cheeze]

My goal is that even though Claremont is endlessingly bashed for his latest run, the Morrison run had it's faults too. Which is the reason for the retcon in the first place. It was suspicious writing and all in all, it's good to have it straightened out once and for all.

And I have moved on. Been MOVED on. The constant bitching about his fans over the Excalibur series, House of M, and anything non Morrison related are the ones who haven't moved on. Face it, whatever criticism that has been laid on Morrison, was well deserved. His mockery of Magneto needed to be cleaned up and thankfully it's happening. Enough of his errand view of Magneto and what he thinks the character should of been portrayed as despite 20 years of characterization progress.


This thread was to analyze his run and the meanings the characters had. It was not to bitch about retcons and comparisons and the such.

If you truely moved on, you wouldn't be here now would you?

Yes we want to alk about his time on the X-men and what happened. Are we not supposed to be able to since he moved on? From your logic, your saying no one should talk about The Dark Phoenix saga or, to take one from you, the way Magneto was characterized during the 90's. It happened, its been retconned/dealt with, why don't you move on? - is how we are supposed to deal with it. Why don't you take a page from your own logic and quite talking about Morrison and how he "mischaracterized" Magneto. It's been retconned to fit your better Magneto thgouht flow so move on already.

Seriously, bugger off if your going to keep saying everyother post about how Morrison mischaracterized Magneto. Talk about derailment....

[Charagon]

Where the hell does this "Morrison's version of Magneto" come from?

I don't give a damn about "Morrison's Magneto", I couldn't care less about what he thinks Magneto should be like.

I'm interested in the Magneto that we already have. That's the character I follow, that's the character I want to read about. If Morrison wants his own Magneto, then he should make his own damn universe and not muck about with the one I'm interested in.

This goes the same for every writer writing every character that's been around longer than they've been writing the book.

[mattbib]

IMO the point of Morrison's Magneto is that it ISN'T Magneto. It's some deranged, drug-induced version thereof. REGARDLESS of the subsequent retcons.

[Charagon]

IMO the point of Morrison's Magneto is that it ISN'T Magneto. It's some deranged, drug-induced version thereof.

Now explain to me why I should even remotely care about him then?

[mattbib]

Well, we didn't know that it was Xorn at the time...

But regardless, during Morrison's storyline Magneto was simply a part of the greater scheme of things. A mere player in the story of how Sublime was pursuing the subjugation of mutantdom. Magneto was a victim. You should care because the use of Magneto within the context of Morrison's overall run helps to illustrate just how big a threat Sublime is, making the final arc all the more meaningful.

[Charagon]

Oh yeah, Sublime was scary. Intelligent bacteria that were magically retconned into being responsible for everything in spite of never being so much as alluded to before.


At least when they did it at the end of the Clone Saga they used a pre-existing villian to be the mastermind behind it all.

[Dan Apodaca]

Oh yeah, Sublime was scary. Intelligent bacteria that were magically retconned into being responsible for everything in spite of never being so much as alluded to before.


At least when they did it at the end of the Clone Saga they used a pre-existing villian to be the mastermind behind it all.

Yeah, better to change a pre-existing character than to add something new.

[Dan Apodaca]

IMO the point of Morrison's Magneto is that it ISN'T Magneto. It's some deranged, drug-induced version thereof.

Now explain to me why I should even remotely care about him then?

No one's asking you to care. This thread is here for those who DO care, so we can talk about it. The story's done now, don't let it bother you.

[Beast]

Yeah, better to change a pre-existing character than to add something new.
New? Sublime was just a retread of 'That Which Endures' from West Coast Avengers. Just like Sublime, TWE didn't exist in mutants. And also used a primary host body, in this case Jeremiah Random. It used an outside stimulas to allow a mutant body to become infected by it. It even took over the Scarlet Witch, caused She-Hulk to go crazy and attack Vision. Gee, anyone sense any similarities with Avengers: Disassembled.

Powers/Abilities: That Which Endures is a collective life form, existing within virtually every human on Earth (certain beings have eradicated it from their body via a variety of methods). It possessed a form of sentience almost immediately, but for the most part that intelligence lays dormant. After millions of years it learned to control the process of "natural selection." Once every hundred thousand years its intellect manifests itself within a few hundred random creatures. These beings study the process of life and match the adaptability of one species against another. As assessment is made: those forms they judge to be at their maximum potential they abandon; their presence within those forms' cells shrinks, dwindling eventually to nothing. Their guiding intellect turns to other, more profitable species.

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/thatwhichendures.htm

[Dan Apodaca]

New? Sublime was just a retread of 'That Which Endures' from West Coast Avengers. Just like Sublime, TWE didn't exist in mutants. It needed an outside stimulas to allow a mutant body to become infected by it. It even took over the Scarlet Witch, causing She-Hulk to go crazy and attack Vision. Gee, anyone sense any similarities with Avengers: Disassembled.

Powers/Abilities: That Which Endures is a collective life form, existing within virtually every human on Earth (certain beings have eradicated it from their body via a variety of methods). It possessed a form of sentience almost immediately, but for the most part that intelligence lays dormant. After millions of years it learned to control the process of "natural selection." Once every hundred thousand years its intellect manifests itself within a few hundred random creatures. These beings study the process of life and match the adaptability of one species against another. As assessment is made: those forms they judge to be at their maximum potential they abandon; their presence within those forms' cells shrinks, dwindling eventually to nothing. Their guiding intellect turns to other, more profitable species.

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/thatwhichendures.htm

It's a new character, is the point I was making. Morrison's run was rarely about innovation. It was centrally about interpretation.

[Beast]

It's a new character, is the point I was making. Morrison's run was rarely about innovation. It was centrally about interpretation.
I wouldn't even call Sublime a character. That would be like saying the MitiClorians from Star Wars were a character. Cassandra Nova, Beak, Xorneto, any of the other new characters he created were at least intresting. Sublime wasn't good storytelling or intresting the first time it was done, with TWE from WCA.

[jetter_cheeze]

I wouldn't even call Sublime a character. That would be like saying the MitiClorians from Star Wars were a character. Cassandra Nova, Beak, Xorneto, any of the other new characters he created were at least intresting. Sublime wasn't good storytelling or intresting the first time it was done, with TWE from WCA.

Sublime had intelligence, thus making the Star wars comparison is not comparing the same thing.

The TWE link in West Coast Avengers was, as far as i know, never made by Morrison and was in fact a fan connection to try and explain it. Unless you have proof of otherwise, i don't believe it to be the same thing.

Oh yeah, Sublime was scary. Intelligent bacteria that were magically retconned into being responsible for everything in spite of never being so much as alluded to before.

Retcons are done by other writers, not by the writer who wrote the original story DURING HIS RUN. If you honestly believe that, then you can say that Bendis retconned Daredevil by having DD admit to going through a mental breakdown that wasn't revelead until the middle of Bendis' run.

Intelligent Bacteria makes sense. If you could accept nano-sentinels, why not intelligent bacteria?

You complain about Sublime not being alluded to, and i would point them out but i have the feeling that it would be like trying to point out that Magneto was alluded to being Xorn during the whole run, you wouldn't believe me. You would argue endlessly saying things like "that wasn't sublime, it couldn't be because..." It becomes an endless battle.

For people who don't like Morrison's runn, okay, we get it and why. We all know you have as much of a chance of changing our minds about how we feel about his run as we do yours. END IT. The people in this thread want to have a serious, intelligent conversation about the work. (not saying it hasn't been yet or trying to insult anyone). You don't want to participate in this thread or you don't like Morrison, okay, move on. Making this a morrison bashing thread eliminates the chance for intelligent conversation. If you want, make an analysis about Claremont's run, or fabien's run, or even austen's run. Discuss things there if you want to, we won't stop you. There are more than enough retcon threads that you have to complain about the retcons you want to see happen and the such about Morrison's run, and there are even threads about Magneto and the whole xorn mess that you can discuss in those threads. For a thread that has the topics about the analysis and connections people say in the run, there are probably 3 good pages of posts about the topics and 10+ pages bitching about how bad people thought it was, or the mistakes made during the run, and everything else that could be described as a slam or a derailment to the topic at hand.

The basher have had their ten pages of complaints, let the fans have about ten pages devoted to what the fans of the work want to talk about.

[Beast]

I think why people dislike the Sublime idea so much, is because it's unnecissary. Morrison wanted to give a reason why human beings hated and feared mutants, so he came up with Sublime. An intelligent strain of RNA/DNA that has existed since the earth first came into being. That influenced humans to hate and fear mutants, because it saw them as a threat, because it didn't exist inside mutant bodies. But that's not necessary at all to explain hate and fear of a minority. Look at the real world, I assure you there's no evil strain of RNA/DNA responsible for humankind hating and fearing anything that's different. We're not an enlightened species, there's still racism and bigotry directed at minorities. All kinds, just due to the color of their skin, sexual prefrences, or a million other reasons. We're hardly a species that needs an outside influence to hate our own.

I won't even address your complaints that we shouldn't even bother to debate our stances on the run. And I take offense in your comment that this thread is only for serious, intelligent conversation about the work. Clearly you think that anyone who dislikes his run can't offer serious intelligent criticism. I think for the most part, many of us who didn't like his run are very fair in our criticism. Just like you choose to see some hidden meaning that was supposedly supposed to be there, we see the continuity holes, plot holes, and other problems from our perspective. Why do you automatically scream bashing, when myself and others are trying to discuss our thoughts on the analysis of his run. Or offering our own thoughts of analysis as well. Like I said before, sometimes a Cigar is just that, a cigar. So where you see 10+ pages of bitching, you fail to see that there is some intelligent conversation going on there. Just because we didn't like his run doesn't mean we're too stupid to understand it or don't appreciate so-called genius.

[Dan Apodaca]

I think why people dislike the Sublime idea so much, is because it's unnecissary. Morrison wanted to give a reason why human beings hated and feared mutants, so he came up with Sublime. An intelligent strain of RNA/DNA that has existed since the earth first came into being. That influenced humans to hate and fear mutants, because it saw them as a threat, because it didn't exist inside mutant bodies. But that's not necessary at all to explain hate and fear of a minority.

Actually, Morrison's explanation for why humanity had such major issues of fear and hatred toward the mutants was that they (humanity) were fearing extinction in the near future.

I'd venture to say you missed something.

I won't even address your complaints that we shouldn't even bother to debate our stances on the run. And I take offense in your comment that this thread is only for serious, intelligent conversation about the work. Clearly you think that anyone who dislikes his run can't offer serious intelligent criticism. I think for the most part, many of us who didn't like his run are very fair in our criticism. Just like you choose to see some hidden meaning that was supposedly supposed to be there, we see the continuity holes, plot holes, and other problems from our perspective. Why do you automatically scream bashing, when myself and others are trying to discuss our thoughts on the analysis of his run. Or offering our own thoughts of analysis as well. Like I said before, sometimes a Cigar is just that, a cigar. So where you see 10+ pages of bitching, you fail to see that there is some intelligent conversation going on there. Just because we didn't like his run doesn't mean we're too stupid to understand it or don't appreciate so-called genius.

You're getting very defensive and missing what he's actually saying. He's taking issue with the posts that consist of "That's not how Magneto would act!" and "All the new students were stupid." If you notice, it took a good number of WHOLE PAGES before he finally got fed up with the unconstructive bashing. We've been trying to have a real discussion here, and have thoroughly discussed and argued points with people who had opposing opinions of the run or certain elements thereof. But it gets frustrating when all someone has to offer is, "The sooner they clean up this mess, the better."

Nope. A cigar is never just a cigar. There is always a reason that someone picked the cigar, or has the cigar, or is averse to the cigar. To say that a cigar is just a cigar is to acknowledge ignorance and be apathetic towards acquiring the knowledge in question. It's like people who say "I don't really listen to the words of the song." That's fine, and that's your right, but that doesn't mean you're in any way correct when you say that the words don't matter. It just means that they don't matter to you.

[Beast]

Actually, Morrison's explanation for why humanity had such major issues of fear and hatred toward the mutants was that they (humanity) were fearing extinction in the near future.

I'd venture to say you missed something.
Whether or not that's his explaination is debatable. Considering my opinion is actually supported by the evidence in the books. It's all there in black and white, clear as crystal. He used Sublime to explain why there was such a heavy level of fear and hatred twords mutants, and it was unneccessary. But then so was that silly 'Extinction Gene'. There was no evident fear of extinction from any of the human characters, other than Sublime's own if he didn't either wipe out the mutant gene or find a way to become a part of it.
Nope. A cigar is never just a cigar. There is always a reason that someone picked the cigar, or has the cigar, or is averse to the cigar. To say that a cigar is just a cigar is to acknowledge ignorance and be apathetic towards acquiring the knowledge in question. It's like people who say "I don't really listen to the words of the song." That's fine, and that's your right, but that doesn't mean you're in any way correct when you say that the words don't matter. It just means that they don't matter to you.
Don't buy that at all. Feel free to continue to cling to your opinion of Morrison's run, but that doesn't mean it's what was intended. And just because you worship his run, doesn't mean you're in any way correct in your interpretation of the run. There's a million and one ways to deconstruct and anally pull apart every aspect of his run. It's neither ignorance or apathy that makes me suggest that some of you are reading way too much into something that Morrison himself clearly didn't care to even bother actually putting into the story. All those massive plot holes, etc. are there because perhaps he's the one fueled by ignorance and apathy.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

This thread was to analyze his run and the meanings the characters had. It was not to bitch about retcons and comparisons and the such.

If you truely moved on, you wouldn't be here now would you?

Yes we want to alk about his time on the X-men and what happened. Are we not supposed to be able to since he moved on? From your logic, your saying no one should talk about The Dark Phoenix saga or, to take one from you, the way Magneto was characterized during the 90's. It happened, its been retconned/dealt with, why don't you move on? - is how we are supposed to deal with it. Why don't you take a page from your own logic and quite talking about Morrison and how he "mischaracterized" Magneto. It's been retconned to fit your better Magneto thgouht flow so move on already.

Seriously, bugger off if your going to keep saying everyother post about how Morrison mischaracterized Magneto. Talk about derailment....

Cool and that doesn't change the fact Morrison's story was such a embarassment that it had to get retconned as soon as possible. Works for me.

[Dan Apodaca]

Whether or not that's his explaination is debatable. Considering my opinion is actually supported by the evidence in the books. It's all there in black and white, clear as crystal. He used Sublime to explain why there was such a heavy level of fear and hatred twords mutants, and it was unneccessary. But then so was that silly 'Extinction Gene'. There was no evident fear of extinction from any of the human characters, other than Sublime's own if he didn't either wipe out the mutant gene or find a way to become a part of it.

Actually, it's not debatable, as Morrison himself stated this to be the case, and it was discussed in the books. Beast made mention of Humanity's impending extinction.

Don't buy that at all. Feel free to continue to cling to your opinion of Morrison's run, but that doesn't mean it's what was intended. And just because you worship his run, doesn't mean you're in any way correct in your interpretation of the run. There's a million and one ways to deconstruct and anally pull apart every aspect of his run. It's neither ignorance or apathy that makes me suggest that some of you are reading way too much into something that Morrison himself clearly didn't care to even bother actually putting into the story. All those massive plot holes, etc. are there because perhaps he's the one fueled by ignorance and apathy.

I've never claimed to be correct in my interpretation. I brought up the article to encourage the exchange of opinions, including ones in conflict with my own. And as I've stated before, I've never had any problem with people saying things they didn't like about the run. All I've asked is that they be thoughts on why, rather than just statements like this:

"that doesn't change the fact Morrison's story was such a embarassment that it had to get retconned as soon as possible."

That doesn't carry the discussion anywhere.

And to say that there are not elements in the run that are not not only clearly present, but mentioned by the writer himself, as intended being included in the story is also not condusive to conversation. You can explain why you didn't think they worked, but to discredit their existence just wastes time.

Frankly, I also don't see why you feel the need ot be so mocking in your tone. I'd rather that this didn't come to branding people as mindless worshippers, or other insulting terms.

Why can't we just talk, instead of argue?

[Beast]

Morrison may have stated that to be the case, but it's nowhere in the narrative. Yes, Beast found the Extinction gene. But nowhere does it say that it's presence is the reason why people hate and fear mutants. Humankind didn't even know about the extinction gene. Sublime knew about it, and knew that it's time as being present in the dominant lifeform on earth was coming to a close. So Morrison retroactively said that it was a deranged evil bacteria that was responsible for people hating and fearing mutants. Which is complete balderdash, there didn't need to be some outside intelligent bacteria to explain why people are racist and bigots. It exists in our culture even to this day, and I rather doubt there's an intelligent bacteria behind it all. :p

If you're intention was to discuss with others, even those who didn't agree with your assessment of the run, then howcome everytime someone offers a viewpoint that is contrary to your own, this article, or Morrison's himself, you decry that they're closeminded and unwilling to see the brilliance. You even went after me, when I was discussing the run with maturity. I could just as easily cry: "Morrison Sucks" and be done with it. But that's not fair to you, other posters, or even Morrison himself. As for elements lacking in his run, they are there. Such as logic. Given that there's massive plotholes that don't add up once you read the story from start to finish.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

"that doesn't change the fact Morrison's story was such a embarassment that it had to get retconned as soon as possible."

That doesn't carry the discussion anywhere.

And to say that there are not elements in the run that are not not only clearly present, but mentioned by the writer himself, as intended being included in the story is also not condusive to conversation. You can explain why you didn't think they worked, but to discredit their existence just wastes time.

Frankly, I also don't see why you feel the need ot be so mocking in your tone. I'd rather that this didn't come to branding people as mindless worshippers, or other insulting terms.

Why can't we just talk, instead of argue?

What am I discrediting? He MOCKED Magneto. That was the goal of his damn run. Did you not read his interview after Magneto was brought back to relevance last year? He had his mold of Magneto set from a 60s point of view and used Sublime and Kick as the devices to bring him to that point again. It was useless. Boring. Overused. And not worth my money. If I could, I would spit in New X-Men #150 and throw it in Morrison's face. It's that much of a joke.

[Titan76]

Well if I had to chose what writer to retconned then it wouldn't be Morrison it would be Austen. That guy just flat out suck and made Morrison's stuff look like a 5 star movie. There are things that I love about Morrison's run and things that I hated about his run, no run is perfect not even Clarmont's first run. There were stories he did that I thought were just flat out stuiped like the issue where Kitty was telling Colossus's sister(foregot her name) a bed time story, that is one of the wrost issues I have ever read but his overall run was still great. To me Morrison had the second best run in X-men comics behind Claremont's first run but that's just my opion. As for why Marvel is retconned almost all his work, I don't think its because it was bad(because then they should retconned all of Austen work) it sold very well and was number 1 for almost half his run, I think it because of what happen at the comic con. between Joe Q.(EIC at Marvel) and Morrison which lend to Morrison leaving Marvel for DC and this is Joe's pay back. Now this may seem stuiped to some of you but this is what I think is happening and looking at all the stuff Marvel has done to Morrison's run and not even touching anything that Austen wrote just makes me really think that is what's happening. I could be wrong but I doubt if we will ever know the truth so I doubt I will change my mind.

[jetter_cheeze]

Morrison may have stated that to be the case, but it's nowhere in the narrative. Yes, Beast found the Extinction gene. But nowhere does it say that it's presence is the reason why people hate and fear mutants. Humankind didn't even know about the extinction gene. Sublime knew about it, and knew that it's time as being present in the dominant lifeform on earth was coming to a close. So Morrison retroactively said that it was a deranged evil bacteria that was responsible for people hating and fearing mutants. Which is complete balderdash, there didn't need to be some outside intelligent bacteria to explain why people are racist and bigots. It exists in our culture even to this day, and I rather doubt there's an intelligent bacteria behind it all. :p

Its nowhere in the narritive? Do you realize what you are saying?

Seriously, not mocking you or anything but that is like saying that the millions interpretations of shakespeares and the themes that people read out of it are rediculous. I'm not saying that Morrison is shakespeare, but its the idea that anyone can't take any ideas or themes from a book that were not explicitedly stated in the book. Look at something like the annotated version of Through The Looking Glass. In it, animals are representation of certain ideas and cultures and your saying that intelligent people are reading too much into it, that it all is worthless.

If you're intention was to discuss with others, even those who didn't agree with your assessment of the run, then howcome everytime someone offers a viewpoint that is contrary to your own, this article, or Morrison's himself, you decry that they're closeminded and unwilling to see the brilliance. You even went after me, when I was discussing the run with maturity. I could just as easily cry: "Morrison Sucks" and be done with it. But that's not fair to you, other posters, or even Morrison himself. As for elements lacking in his run, they are there. Such as logic. Given that there's massive plotholes that don't add up once you read the story from start to finish.

I could argue this point, but it would be wasting time. Why? Because i know where your arguement goes from here and its pointless. This is the same song and dance you got through with every Morrison thread. If the subject doesn't interest you or entertain you, just walk away. I don't get into threads or discussions that i don't want to talk about because they are not entertaining to me. So why waste your time saying the same old arguement to people who have heard it alll before?

You've had a hard time reading the Morrison books probably because the characters are very dear to you and they themselves have certain meanings.If someone came along and read this as their first x-book in a long time or ever, they were able to take something else from it as fans of the story, and were able to make an analysis such as one that was given. I believe that this is one of the reasons long time x-fans have a hard time with morrison. It is not a wrong viewpoint to not like Morrison, but it filled the x-books with story possibilities that worked for newbies. At least in my opinion....

[Be Stiff]

That's a good point. Why is it that we feel the need to make our villains so villainous? So we can feel better about them getting beat to hell? Or is it that we prefer for things to be split up into simple good and evil, so we don't have to worry if we're doing the right thing?

Definitely something to think about.

Not quite what I meant - I'm talking about the kind of feebs who call themselves "L0rd M4gnuz 1982 - homo superior lord of the kiddies' sandpit" and sign off all their posts with "death to teh homo sapienz!".

That's a parody of the kind of people I'm talking about, sure - but that kind of thinking exists. Magneto is a facist. The consequence of a successful facist is mass murder or genocide (fuck, it's even the consequence of failed facists). Planet X is a reasonably realistic outcome of what would happen if Magneto is real.

Look at it this way - ignoring Claremont's jewish holocaust surivivor retcon completely for a moment, please - can you concieve of a racist eugenecist ranting warmonger bastard like the Silver Age Magneto, created by two Jewish guys being anything other than a fucking Nazi?

That's the true Magneto. Period.

Claremont's twist was clever and to a degree inovative but it kind of seems fan-ficcy in the modern age.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Another Morrison fan loving to discount Claremont's work to justify the ending of Planet X. Gotcha. We've heard that before though. It's still circular logic.

[jetter_cheeze]

Another Morrison fan loving to discount Claremont's work to justify the ending of Planet X. Gotcha. We've heard that before though. It's still circular logic.

Hey, glad to see that you can insult him, label him, and then discredit his opinion of a hypothetical situation and call it circular logic because it doesn't fit your view of the character.

Without Claremont, Morrison wouldn't be able to write him in his story because of the work Claremont did. No one was insulting CLaremont or his work here, a hypothetical situation was given and an opinion about it stated. It was not Claremont bashing.

[Be Stiff]

Another Morrison fan loving to discount Claremont's work to justify the ending of Planet X. Gotcha. We've heard that before though. It's still circular logic.


And with that, my carefully crafted arguement crumbles into a million tiny peices. All who see this message beware Erik Lehnsher, for he is truly a debating god among men.

Ack.

[Dan Apodaca]

If you're intention was to discuss with others, even those who didn't agree with your assessment of the run, then howcome everytime someone offers a viewpoint that is contrary to your own, this article, or Morrison's himself, you decry that they're closeminded and unwilling to see the brilliance. You even went after me, when I was discussing the run with maturity. I could just as easily cry: "Morrison Sucks" and be done with it. But that's not fair to you, other posters, or even Morrison himself. As for elements lacking in his run, they are there. Such as logic. Given that there's massive plotholes that don't add up once you read the story from start to finish.

Prove it. You feel so persecuted by me, show where I've done such a thing.

I called you ignorant and apathetic, not closeminded and unwilling. That's not an insult. That just means that you don't know and you don't care. That's your right.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

And with that, my carefully crafted arguement crumbles into a million tiny peices. All who see this message beware Erik Lehnsher, for he is truly a debating god among men.

Ack.

I was bored of carrying the conversation. Why not just sum it up?

[jetter_cheeze]

I was bored of carrying the conversation. Why not just sum it up?

And miss the point of he was really trying to say by labeling it as Morrison vs Claremont when it really isn't? I would say job well done. But then insulting one another back and forth does not actually carry the conversation towards anything but pointlessness.

What some posters are doing here can best be described in this manner. Imagine if you will, that there is a school field trip to the zoo. A few of the kids don't like animals. Really don't like them. Flat out refuse to want to go. There are acouple of things these kids can do, they can sit on the bus and not have to worry about seeing the animals, or their parents can not sign their permissions slips. Simply avoidance of the situation means no bellyaching. But their parents did sign them up because they thought it would be good for them, and so they went. They decided that they would whine and cry and yell at the parents who volunteered to help supervise the trip and make the whole experience unenjoyable for all because they felt that their opinions about the zoo had to be heard by all and damn them if they didn't pay them the attention that they wanted. They didn't realize that with all the crying and yelling and screaming that they weren't really doing anything but ruining the whole experience for everyone. But since their parents also signed their slips, they felt that their two cents about everything was valed and thus had to be heard. Over and over and over again.

Now look at that story. Analyze it to see what group of people represents who in this story, look at the ideas that those characters represent, and if you can do that then you can do the same thing to that someone else did with Morrison's run and you can participate in the conversation taking a better understanding of what Morrison did.

Yes, Morrison did have the characters stand for ideals. Yes, that is what we want to talk about here. If you don't think that it applies, look at the writer's other works. Hell, check out CBR's own LITG column this week to see what someone has done with Morrison's Seven Soldiers project, ITS THE SAME EXACT THING THAT HE DID WITH THE X-MEN. If he got Magneto's character wrong, then he got it wrong. Were not here to discuss that. We are here to discuss what ideas Magneto represented and if Morrison was consistant with keeping these ideas afloat during his run. What did the other character mean during his run, what about this, what about that. Were discussing ideas here. Were not here to complain about Beast's change, or if Xorn was real, or the scott/emma relationship. We are here to see how the ideas that these characters represent work in the whole story.

Some are here to complain about the mischaracterization of certain characters during the run. Put that in the "how do you feel about Morrison's run thread." It more appropriate there, although it seems more and more that this thread is mutating into that thread.

[Be Stiff]

I was bored of carrying the conversation. Why not just sum it up?


There's no law saying you have to post, man. By the way, how would you go about defending the fact your sig quotes are all in support of fictionalised facisim?

[xakko]

What some posters are doing here can best be described in this manner. Imagine if you will, that there is a school field trip to the zoo. [SNIP]
To push your analogy beyond the bounds of credibility, I consider what Morrison did with New X-Men to be the equivalent of the zoo-keepers performing unnecessary invasive surgeries on the animals for the sake of art.

Yes, Morrison did have the characters stand for ideals. Yes, that is what we want to talk about here. If you don't think that it applies, look at the writer's other works. Hell, check out CBR's own LITG column this week to see what someone has done with Morrison's Seven Soldiers project, ITS THE SAME EXACT THING THAT HE DID WITH THE X-MEN. If he got Magneto's character wrong, then he got it wrong. Were not here to discuss that. We are here to discuss what ideas Magneto represented and if Morrison was consistant with keeping these ideas afloat during his run. What did the other character mean during his run, what about this, what about that. Were discussing ideas here. Were not here to complain about Beast's change, or if Xorn was real, or the scott/emma relationship. We are here to see how the ideas that these characters represent work in the whole story.

Some are here to complain about the mischaracterization of certain characters during the run. Put that in the "how do you feel about Morrison's run thread." It more appropriate there, although it seems more and more that this thread is mutating into that thread.
Actually, this is the problem. And makes this thread relevant to those who dislike his run, in part of as a whole. If it were an alternate reality or Elseworlds or whatever, that'd be one thing. But *if* it meant everything the article claims, then Morrison has truly performed "unnecessary surgery for the sake of art". For all of the whining by his fans, and the gloating of his detractors, his run has not been retconned. Magneto always returns from the dead. Jean is still dead. Scott's with Emma, Beast is still a cat. Costumes have changed in almost every run, so that doesn't count. The school hasn't changed all that much. His little "open letter to comics fans" has had lasting effects and become part of Marvel continuity. As some posters are fond of saying, those of us who dislike it still have to accept it. Quite frankly, I find making such changes lightly a terrible sin by a writer. Mischaracterizing Magneto (as you are stipulating) forced Marvel to come up the Xorneto protocol; otherwise a Magneto that engages in Rube Goldbergesque plots to destroy his enemies becomes a part of the character.

[Jared_Humpherys]

Beast, the implication that those who didn't like Morrison's run are stupid or ignorant was made by you and you alone. Non one in this thread said it: YOU made that connection. In other words, you're fishing for something to be offended by. All the folks in this thread want to do is discuss their interpretations of Morrison's run and the meanings behind it, not discuss whether or not he handled continuity or a certain character the correct way. So why feel so offended by this thread? As is stands, your comments seem to be out of place with the intention of the thread. you don't like Morrison. That's great. You've said your piece(which again doesn't match the intent of the thread), now go and post it somewhere else instead of repeating yourself here. I promise we won't insult Claremont in your absence, or call people who didn't like Morrison's run "stupid." In exchange for that, how about you leave us alone?

[Beast]

Beast, the implication that those who didn't like Morrison's run are stupid or ignorant was made by you and you alone. Non one in this thread said it: YOU made that connection. In other words, you're fishing for something to be offended by. All the folks in this thread want to do is discuss their interpretations of Morrison's run and the meanings behind it, not discuss whether or not he handled continuity or a certain character the correct way. So why feel so offended by this thread? As is stands, your comments seem to be out of place with the intention of the thread. you don't like Morrison. That's great. You've said your piece(which again doesn't match the intent of the thread), now go and post it somewhere else instead of repeating yourself here. I promise we won't insult Claremont in your absence, or call people who didn't like Morrison's run "stupid." In exchange for that, how about you leave us alone?
I love your spin doctoring man. I'm fairly certain I wasn't the ones who have beaten the dead horse of: "You don't like it because you don't understand it." Or called myself and others ignorant and basically stupid for not declaring the brilliance of the run. If the thread is for a discussion of the analysis of Morrison's run, than it's only fair that you allow the opposite viewpoint to discuss their analysis of the run. Instead of whining that we should go away so you can all circle jerk about how truely wonderful and how much deep meaning Morrison crammed into the book. Even if it did fly in the fact of continuity, characterization, or logic. :p

[Jared_Humpherys]

I love your spin doctoring man. I'm fairly certain I wasn't the ones who have beaten the dead horse of: "You don't like it because you don't understand it." Or called myself and others ignorant and basically stupid for not declaring the brilliance of the run. If the thread is for a discussion of the analysis of Morrison's run, than it's only fair that you allow the opposite viewpoint to discuss their analysis of the run. Instead of whining that we should go away so you can all circle jerk about how truely wonderful and how much deep meaning Morrison crammed into the book. Even if it did fly in the fact of continuity, characterization, or logic. :p

Then why don't you go create your own "This is why I dislike Morrison" thread? I can promise you I'll stay out of it, and I imagine Jetter_cheese, Dan Apodaca and others could be persuaded to do the same. More than an even trade: you can post your own thread and say whatever you want about Morrison and his run without myself and potentially others interfering, in exchange for us getting to discuss Morrison in this thread without your...contributions. I would think it would make sense(or it would if you have half the common decency of your namesake...do you?).

Edit: And you know what? Before your last post, the main culprit was Erik Lensherr. I was going to apologize and redirect alot of what I said to him. But after that circle jerk remark, you've pretty much proved me right.

[SnakeEater]

ive come to the conclusion that the ending of planet x wasnt the original ending preferred and it was thrown there to piss marvel and the readings off. Although i find teh morrison run on Xmen to be my favorite i also believe that th eend was not intended to be "the end" and it only came off the way it did because Morrison and Quesada had some kind of falling out leading to morrison leaving marvel. i like it, but again it was there just to cause anger.

[Dan Apodaca]

I love your spin doctoring man. I'm fairly certain I wasn't the ones who have beaten the dead horse of: "You don't like it because you don't understand it." Or called myself and others ignorant and basically stupid for not declaring the brilliance of the run. If the thread is for a discussion of the analysis of Morrison's run, than it's only fair that you allow the opposite viewpoint to discuss their analysis of the run. Instead of whining that we should go away so you can all circle jerk about how truely wonderful and how much deep meaning Morrison crammed into the book. Even if it did fly in the fact of continuity, characterization, or logic. :p

PLEASE STOP INSULTING PEOPLE.

There's no need to say things like "whining that we should go away so you can all circle jerk". And throwing a smiley at the end of it doesn't make it any less rude.

As I posted before, I called you ignorant, not stupid. That jump is one you made on your own. There is nothing wrong with ignorance. But if you want to believe that a cigar is just a cigar, though the writer has stated it to be much more, you are insisting upon your own ignorance. Especially by ignoring posts that have been made to address this point.

If the thread is for a discussion of the analysis of Morrison's run, than it's only fair that you allow the opposite viewpoint to discuss their analysis of the run.

Not really. The thread is to discuss the analysis, not the run. If you disagree with a point in the analysis, please feel free to tell us why.

Honestly, I can't understand why you're still posting in this thread. You demand that we listen to alternative viewpoints, and yet, I haven't seen you post a single detail about WHAT you didn't like about the analysis OR the run, other than your opinion of Sublime. That is the only viewpoint you've actually expressed on the entire thread, and if you look back, you'll see that it was considered and reasonably discussed by all posters who chose to. I just don't see why you feel so persecuted. I have seen you use broad terms and hurl righteous invective.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

There's no law saying you have to post, man. By the way, how would you go about defending the fact your sig quotes are all in support of fictionalised facisim?

I support the character of Magneto. There are reasons he has done what he has done. It's the complexity of his character. He said what was necessary to the hyprocrites of the world at large. Hell, even Morrison's own stories proved Magneto was right.

[Jared_Humpherys]

I support the character of Magneto. There are reasons he has done what he has done. It's the complexity of his character. He said what was necessary to the hyprocrites of the world at large. Hell, even Morrison's own stories proved Magneto was right.

I will address the following to you as well:

Then why don't you go create your own "This is why I dislike Morrison" thread? I can promise you I'll stay out of it, and I imagine Jetter_cheese, Dan Apodaca and others could be persuaded to do the same. More than an even trade: you can post your own thread and say whatever you want about Morrison and his run without myself and potentially others interfering, in exchange for us getting to discuss Morrison in this thread without your...contributions. I would think it would make sense...

[Erik Lehnsherr]

I will address the following to you as well:

What is the meaning of that? I had no qualms with this thread until Magneto's integrity of character of the last 20 years was attacked by Morrison fanboys galore. It's over though. The Xorneto mess ENDS one way or another in House of M #7...whether anyone likes it or not.

[Beast]

I will address the following to you as well:
Because we have every right to post our opinions in this thread. Especially when we disagree with the analysis or the other posters. There's no 'Morrison Lovers Only' edict at work here. Just because you can't handle someone having a differing opinion than yours, doesn't mean you can tell us we can't post here. We have a legitimate opinion on the run, the analysis, and your opinions of both. And we're here to present it, like it or lump it.

[Jared_Humpherys]

What is the meaning of that? I had no qualms with this thread until Magneto's integrity of character of the last 20 years was attacked by Morrison fanboys galore. It's over though. The Xorneto mess ENDS one way or another in House of M #7...whether anyone likes it or not.

Attacked?! All any Morrison defender did was say that Magneto in Planet X was meant by Morrison to be the real Magneto, and showed examples that supported Morrison's decisions. In other words, YOU were doing the attacking, THEY were doing the defending.

And again, you're missing the entire point of the thread, which is NOT to discuss whether or not a character behaved in continuity, but about Morrison's reasons WHY. You obviously don't care about the "why," you just feel offended that it happened. Therefore, nothing you have said thus far fits the topic of this thread, and you'd be better served starting your own "I hate how Morrison wrote Magneto" thread, and leave us alone.

[Jared_Humpherys]

Because we have every right to post our opinions in this thread. Especially when we disagree with the analysis or the other posters. There's no 'Morrison Lovers Only' edict at work here. Just because you can't handle someone having a differing opinion than yours, doesn't mean you can tell us we can't post here. We have a legitimate opinion on the run, the analysis, and your opinions of both. And we're here to present it, like it or lump it.

I'm not demanding anything of you. I asked you nicely. Once again, you take offense where none was meant. Are you really that sensitive? Or are you basically saying that "I have the right to post my anti-Morrison remarks wherever and whenever I want, regardless if it's unrelated to the topic at hand."

And I can perfectly handle your opinion of Morrison: you've made it very clear in every Morrison topic you've ever posted in.

Again, the topic is not about what you want to make it about. You're right, you have the right to post where you please. But if you had any consideration for the thread starter or the people who want to discuss the topic at hand, you'd start your own thread about the topic. Apparently, your need to vent your venom against Morrison everywhere supercedes basic board decency and etiquette.

And to think, I used to have respect for you...

[Beast]

Attacked?! All any Morrison defender did was say that Magneto in Planet X was meant by Morrison to be the real Magneto, and showed examples that supported Morrison's decisions. In other words, YOU were doing the attacking, THEY were doing the defending.

And again, you're missing the entire point of the thread, which is NOT to discuss whether or not a character behaved in continuity, but about Morrison's reasons WHY. You obviously don't care about the "why," you just feel offended that it happened. Therefore, nothing you have said thus far fits the topic of this thread, and you'd be better served starting your own "I hate how Morrison wrote Magneto" thread, and leave us alone.
If Morrison meant for Xorn to be Magneto all along, he certainly left massive plot holes that could be used to point out that he alternatively couldn't be. Of course those arn't even addressed in this fanboyish deconstruction of Morrison's run. Such as Wolverine being unable to smell him. The lack of concentration camp tattoos on his bare arms. And both Emma and the Shiar telepaths commenting on the absense of mind as it had been swallowed by a black hole, not that there was something shielding his mind. Xorn shown with his helmet off and open on several ocassions in the New X-Men Annual. Even Xorn before being addicted to Kick, murdering two innocent children who'd already been brutalized. There's plot holes galore in New X-Men that allows the reader to decide whether or not Xorneto was the real slim Magnus.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Attacked?! All any Morrison defender did was say that Magneto in Planet X was meant by Morrison to be the real Magneto, and showed examples that supported Morrison's decisions. In other words, YOU were doing the attacking, THEY were doing the defending.

And again, you're missing the entire point of the thread, which is NOT to discuss whether or not a character behaved in continuity, but about Morrison's reasons WHY. You obviously don't care about the "why," you just feel offended that it happened. Therefore, nothing you have said thus far fits the topic of this thread, and you'd be better served starting your own "I hate how Morrison wrote Magneto" thread, and leave us alone.

Real Magneto? So, Magneto wanted to FLIP the world on it's head? That's been his ULTIMATE goal all these years? Ah but of course. I understand the token reply you have for me. Sublime, right? No..it's Kick, right? Yeah. One or another, the combination or whatever the story dictated to make Morrison abuse Magneto's character to no end. You MAY have like that kind of story telling but I found it digressive and outdated.

And as for you're second rant? I know all too well of Morrison's whys. He let it known in his interview last year after Magneto was brought back from the lackluster conclusion of Planet X. Morrison planned on mocking Magneto from the start of the story. A idea I spit on. Defend it any way you wish but the sooner that inept story is straightened out, the better.

[Jared_Humpherys]

Real Magneto? So, Magneto wanted to FLIP the world on it's head? That's been his ULTIMATE goal all these years? Ah but of course. I understand the token reply you have for me. Sublime, right? No..it's Kick, right? Yeah. One or another, the combination or whatever the story dictated to make Morrison abuse Magneto's character to no end. You MAY have like that kind of story telling but I found it digressive and outdated.

And as for you're second rant? I know all too well of Morrison's whys. He let it known in his interview last year after Magneto was brought back from the lackluster conclusion of Planet X. Morrison planned on mocking Magneto from the start of the story. A idea I spit on. Defend it any way you wish but the sooner that inept story is straightened out, the better.


Is there something wrong with the grammar in the earlier posts? Is my request somehow nonsensical? Or maybe you're just ignoring my point, or somehow fail to understand it?

Why is it so hard to grasp?

To hell with it. I give up.

[Beast]

I'm not demanding anything of you. I asked you nicely. Once again, you take offense where none was meant. Are you really that sensitive? Or are you basically saying that "I have the right to post my anti-Morrison remarks wherever and whenever I want, regardless if it's unrelated to the topic at hand."

And I can perfectly handle your opinion of Morrison: you've made it very clear in every Morrison topic you've ever posted in.

Again, the topic is not about what you want to make it about. You're right, you have the right to post where you please. But if you had any consideration for the thread starter or the people who want to discuss the topic at hand, you'd start your own thread about the topic. Apparently, your need to vent your venom against Morrison everywhere supercedes basic board decency and etiquette.

And to think, I used to have respect for you...
I don't see how you can say that the alternate viewpoint of his work is unrelated to the topic at hand. That's ridiculous, that's the whole point of the thread. Analysis of his run. Why is it perfectly fine for you people to continue to praise and analize it because you thought it was good, but the moment someone comes in with an alternative viewpoint you say it's not related to the topic at hand. We're discussing New X-Men and Morrison, and our views of the work that was presented. It's still intresting analysis, even if it's an analysis that disagrees with your thoughts.

And if I made it clear, then clearly you're missing something. I have even praised the first half of his run, other than a few minor issues. It wasn't until Planet X especially, where Morrison's own work actually circled back and damaged what would have been a fine run up until that point. It's not the fans that turned against his New X-Men run, it was Morrison himself. He tried to destroy everything he'd built up over the run, whether it was accidental or on purpose due to his problems with Quesada are unknown. It's certainly clear to me when he seemed to get bored or not care what he presented.

If I was venting or spewing venom about the run, I wouldn't even bother to try to discuss these things with you. But I'm being fair to you and Morrison, and actually laying it out there to be discussed. If I'm willing to be mature and take that step, why won't you meet me halfway? We all know that you're unlikely to have your opinion changed, no matter how many plot holes I point out. The same as I'm unlikely to have my opinion changed, no matter how many times I hear it was the best thing since sliced bread. As for board decency and ettiqutte, I'm not breaking any of the rules. I'm just trying to have a mature intlligent discussion here.

As for respect, that's a shame. I still respect you. Oh well...

[Jared_Humpherys]

I don't see how you can say that the alternate viewpoint of his work is unrelated to the topic at hand. That's ridiculous, that's the whole point of the thread. Analysis of his run. Why is it perfectly fine for you people to continue to praise and analize it because you thought it was good, but the moment someone comes in with an alternative viewpoint you say it's not related to the topic at hand. We're discussing New X-Men and Morrison, and our views of the work that was presented. It's still intresting analysis, even if it's an analysis that disagrees with your thoughts.

And if I made it clear, then clearly you're missing something. I have even praised the first half of his run, other than a few minor issues. It wasn't until Planet X especially, where Morrison's own work actually circled back and damaged what would have been a fine run up until that point. It's not the fans that turned against his New X-Men run, it was Morrison himself. He tried to destroy everything he'd built up over the run, whether it was accidental or on purpose due to his problems with Quesada are unknown. It's certainly clear to me when he seemed to get bored or not care what he presented.

If I was venting or spewing venom about the run, I wouldn't even bother to try to discuss these things with you. But I'm being fair to you and Morrison, and actually laying it out there to be discussed. If I'm willing to be mature and take that step, why won't you meet me halfway? We all know that you're unlikely to have your opinion changed, no matter how many plot holes I point out. The same as I'm unlikely to have my opinion changed, no matter how many times I hear it was the best thing since sliced bread. As for board decency and ettiqutte, I'm not breaking any of the rules. I'm just trying to have a mature intlligent discussion here.

As for respect, that's a shame. I still respect you. Oh well...


Again, we're not analysing Morrison's effectiveness in handling the characters or the overall quality of his run. We are discussing the meanings of the subtext, what certain characters represent, etc, to help with a better understanding of the work. Your bringing up character inconsistencies and plotholes does not contribute to that discussion, and I think you know that. Actually, I'll go as far as saying I think you're doing that in order to gain a sense of superiority over those discussing the subtext. You're saying "So what if you think Cyclops' failure to use optic blasts is a Morrison comparison to repressed sexual energy? His use of Magneto goes against character continuity!" Not only is it self-serving, but it really doesn't contribute to the discussion at all.

And again, you haven't given a reason for not starting your own thread yet. But howzabout this: I make a "Discuss the subtext of Morrison's New X-men" thread where I explicitly ask that people don't comment on continuity or personal opinion, and you and Erik stay out of it(or at least stick to the topic at hand). Would you adhere to that?

[Alan2099]

Actually, whether he means to or not, he brings up a good point. It doesn't matter how many subtities or hidden messages you cram into your story, if the visible main storyline is full of errors or bad plotting that's what people will notice.

Or to put it into simpiler terms, if you combine a gallon of ice cream with a gallon of manuer, nobody is going to notice the icecream.

[Dan Apodaca]

If Morrison meant for Xorn to be Magneto all along, he certainly left massive plot holes that could be used to point out that he alternatively couldn't be. Of course those arn't even addressed in this fanboyish deconstruction of Morrison's run.

Because, as you don't seem to understand, it's not a deconstruction of the run. It's a deconstruction of the ideas behind the run. The quality of the execution of those ideas is effectively irrelevant.

Such as Wolverine being unable to smell him. The lack of concentration camp tattoos on his bare arms. And both Emma and the Shiar telepaths commenting on the absense of mind as it had been swallowed by a black hole, not that there was something shielding his mind. Xorn shown with his helmet off and open on several ocassions in the New X-Men Annual. Even Xorn before being addicted to Kick, murdering two innocent children who'd already been brutalized.

I'm glad you finally decided to explain what you've been talking about this whole time. It makes me want to talk to you.

Wolvie being unable to smell him: This is the only real point you make here. I'm having trouble thinking of reasons why this would be the case.

Tattoos: There are a number of ways that Magnus could have hid these. After all, if he was disguising himself, you'd expect him to cover up such such a distinguishing feature. He could have covered it with make-up, easily. It could also be attributed to the fact that the artists didn't know he was Magneto.

Telepaths: He tricked them.

Helmet off: This is a combination of artists not knowing he was Magneto, and disguising himself with the blast of energy.

Murdering kids: I don't remember this. I remember him killing Quentin Quire. I remember him killing U-Men. And even if he did kill two people, that doesn't seem out of character for Magneto at all, to me.

[streator]

Murdering kids: I don't remember this. I remember him killing Quentin Quire. I remember him killing U-Men. And even if he did kill two people, that doesn't seem out of character for Magneto at all, to me.
he is talking about magneto killing basilisk and the rogue stepford cuckoo (esme?).

/that's about as close as i am coming back into all of this.

[Beast]

No. I'm referring to the two children during the demonstration of Xorn's powers for Sublime in the New X-Men Annual. Killing two innocent children just too supposedly gain the intrest of Sublime and the X-Men seems a ludicrous idea. Plus I have a hard time buying that he faked an event horizon of a black hole that a U-Man and others were convinced by.

[Be Stiff]

I support the character of Magneto. There are reasons he has done what he has done. It's the complexity of his character. He said what was necessary to the hyprocrites of the world at large. Hell, even Morrison's own stories proved Magneto was right.

You're not supporting a character, though - you're supporting a collection of text and pictures that's been typed and scribbled by scores of writers and artists. Before the judaisim thing was added (and really, I think that's the most harmful thing that was done to the character - I'm not opposed to Jewish comics characters in the slightest, but I think it's hard to convincingly retcon tin-pot Nazis analouges into being said Jewish comics characters) he was a sci-fi Nazi. He did Mengle stuff to people, dabbled in cloning ubermensch and stuffed people in cars and threw them into ovens. If you're Morrison's run proves Magneto is right then you're saying killing people because they were born different is right. That's genocidal facisim. Oh, and most importantly of all -

MAGNETO ISN'T ACTUALLY REAL, DUDE

[Alan2099]

You're not supporting a character, though - you're supporting a collection of text and pictures that's been typed and scribbled by scores of writers and artists.
And what makes that NOT a character?

MAGNETO ISN'T ACTUALLY REAL, DUDE
I don't think anybody ever said he was real. They were just talking about a character.

Do you not understand the difference between a character and a real person?

[mattbib]

A suggestion...

Let's (myself included because I'm just as guilty of it) try leaving the words "you" and "you're" out of our posts within discussion threads. It almost forces you to discuss the topic or opinion instead of the poster. :)

Additionally, I don't understand why there continues to be this all-or-nothing attitude and 'choosing of sides' when either Morrison or Claremont are discussed. Each of their works has good and bad aspects, and surely each of us can favor one of them, but to have to continually damn the other? It's over. We can stop disrupting threads by turning them into Claremont vs. Morrison debates.

I still disagree with some of the article that Dan posted, particularly some of the opinions on Cyclops and Beast, and I've stated why earlier. Others disagree with my interpretation of Morrison's run, and vice versa, but no interpretation can be proven as fact so I'm not seeing the point of trying to convince others that a particular interpretation is the correct one.

[jetter_cheeze]

Why can't Wolverine smell Magneto? The reason almost seems obvious rihgt now...

Sublime.

Think about it, and it seriously works.

Based on the interpretations of the works given at the start of this thread, we get the understand that the real magnus was never really in the story except for a few places due to the fact that he was under the control of Sublime. Sublime, being an intelligent bacteria, was able to take control of his minds. Since Sublime has been around since the beginning of the earth, it would be safe to assume that he understand the earth and all its elements better than humnas, thus he would be able to figure out smell and how it works and then how to control it so Wolverine can't sniff out Magneto.

Hell, its either that or Magneto held control of nanosentinels that occasionally sprayed him with something to mask the smell enough not to be detected.

[jetter_cheeze]

No. I'm referring to the two children during the demonstration of Xorn's powers for Sublime in the New X-Men Annual. Killing two innocent children just too supposedly gain the intrest of Sublime and the X-Men seems a ludicrous idea. Plus I have a hard time buying that he faked an event horizon of a black hole that a U-Man and others were convinced by.


Then again, did any of the u-men really know what to expect out of a black hole besides the cosmetics that Magneto could produce to make it appear as though one was to happen?

Killing two children to protect his cover of an alias makes sense, especially if they were human. Look at Erik's (the poster's) signature for further proof. Humans matter not.

[mattbib]

Killing two children to protect his cover of an alias makes sense, especially if they were human.And even moreso given that he was under Sublime's influence. I agree that regardless of the later retcons, most of what happened in the arc could easily be explained as the real Magneto.

[jetter_cheeze]

Actually, whether he means to or not, he brings up a good point. It doesn't matter how many subtities or hidden messages you cram into your story, if the visible main storyline is full of errors or bad plotting that's what people will notice.

Or to put it into simpiler terms, if you combine a gallon of ice cream with a gallon of manuer, nobody is going to notice the icecream.


Alright, but what if Morrison's subtities are what the main story is supposed to be and the action is supposed to take second place?

Morrison's work does seem to play out that way sometimes.

In books like the Invisisbles, you have to understand the ideas being presented before you can begin to understand the story.


And before i get attacked by anyone for supposidely saying otherwise, no, i am not calling anyone stupid if they don't think this way or see this conclusion. Ignorant maybe, but not stupid.

[BizarroBeachHead]

Additionally, I don't understand why there continues to be this all-or-nothing attitude and 'choosing of sides' when either Morrison or Claremont are discussed. Each of their works has good and bad aspects, and surely each of us can favor one of them, but to have to continually damn the other? It's over. We can stop disrupting threads by turning them into Claremont vs. Morrison debates.

I'm with you Mattbib. I really don't understand why, whenever somebody talks about the X-Men, it always turns into a versus match. I've already stated that I didn't think Planet X was the most engaging story, but I really enjoyed the theme. But for some reason, people take that to mean Morrison Uber Alles!

The other thing I've noticed when talking about Magneto in Morrison's X-Men(and don't just mean this thread, I mean elsewhere) is that people always try to throw the Xorneto retcon into play. I understand that currently Magneto is alive and well in Genosha and it has been since stated that Xorn was NOT Magneto. BUT, for the intents and purposes of Morrison's run, it WAS Magneto. I've had somebody tell me that the theme was pointless because it was retconned that Xorn wasn't Magneto. Some people can't just detatch themselves from the whole "X-Universe" and just enjoy a story for what it is.

[Alan2099]

Alright, but what if Morrison's subtities are what the main story is supposed to be and the action is supposed to take second place?
That goes against the very definition of what subtlies are.

[xmanson]

I still can't believe how Marvel failed to capitalize on the X-Corporation idea.. a great idea for a book with rotatinr creative teams working on different groups every arc.

And the major stretch of the Xorn thing is that it was dependendt on getting the X-men's attention, everything working out for them and even inviting him later to join. Too much. What if they just let him free?

[Mr. Jip]

They won't leave this thread alone, because they need to hurt us like they've been hurt by Morrison.

They don't understand that everything's just a matter of opinion & not fact.
Also they just see things as black and white. Either you like Claremont & hate Morrison. You can't like both.
Sorry my tastes aren't as limited.

They believe Morrison mocked Magneto('s character) & likewise they now mock us & our theories spawned by hyperactive imagination.

MY HUMBLE OPINION: (Yes it's just my own bloody OPINION, and YOU are entitled to have your own wonderful & hopefully well-informed opinion)

When i first read Morrison's, i felt that ALL my beloved X-characters were redeemed. They had been acting like sexy retarded zombies for almost a decade. Suddenly they were ALIVE agaiN~~!! Gloriously sensual & ALIVE~!!!~~~~

i have been a Claremont fan since Uncanny #200, and NO, i've never really read Morrison before. i think i flipped through the Invisibles once or twice before & never really got into it, so NO, i didn't read New X-Men through Morrison-tinted glasses.

The 90s MOCKED my X-Men.
The 90s MOCKED MAGNETO.

i couldn't believe Magneto was suddenly sooOoooo bad-ass & crafty enough to infiltrate the X-Men like that with some stupid "Chinese" alter-ego. (
HELLooOOOOOoO~??~?~?~ ANYBODY who listened to my anti-Xorn rants KNEW he wasn't no real Chinaman!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~)
Magneto actually DID something WICKEDLY AWESOME and a hot evil blonde telepathic minor even propositioned herself to the old man!!~~
Then he went out with a BANG. And took Jean with him.
And what a BANG it was.
(as opposed to all the fizzles that masqueraded as BANGs in the 90s)
THANK GOD.
They needed to GO.

How many more times do we need them ressurecting & coming back?
Collosus & Psylocke??!?
Love them, but right now i really don't give a damn about their presence in the X-books.

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, and it's JUST MY BLOODY OPINION: the X-Men ended with Morrison's run.
Sure i enjoy Whedon & Claremont's Uncanny, but i don't read it as continuity anymore. (WHAT continuity IS THERE anyway??)

Morrison put so much into the X-Men, now everything just reads likecheap pulp fiction & tabloid gossip.

[Uncle Nobs]

Additionally, I don't understand why there continues to be this all-or-nothing attitude and 'choosing of sides' when either Morrison or Claremont are discussed. Each of their works has good and bad aspects, and surely each of us can favor one of them, but to have to continually damn the other? It's over. We can stop disrupting threads by turning them into Claremont vs. Morrison debates.
Yeah. What the man said.

As longtime readers of X-Men, shouldn't we--WE of all people--have learned by now that extremist views accomplish nothing?!?

These forums can be used for progressive, thought-provoking discussions, or they can be used for inflammatory, sarcastic, extremist, cynical arguments.

I'm actually going to quote myself (I never claimed to be modest ;) ), and I'll continue to re-post it for as long as posters insist on such extremism.

Why is it so hard for readers to accept that different writers have different goals?

Claremont writes (most often) fantasy fiction. He writes so readers can get lost in the fantasy world. The fourth wall and/or the protection of a self-contained fantasy world are not to be broken (except for an occasional joke on a title page). He makes it multi-layered by including a ton of life experience, spiritual themes, and appreciation for humanity, culture, history, and romance.

Byrne (just to pick a writer neutral to this discussion) writes (most often) fantasy fiction with a constant wink & nod at readers. He writes so readers have the option of getting lost in the fantasy world or interpreting it all as pure humor. The fourth wall and/or the protection of a self-contained fantasy world are broken over and over again, because he always tries to keep the focus on the idea that these fictional characters are only fictional characters, and ridiculous ones at that. He makes it multi-layered by actually telling compelling drama that works on that pure fantasy fiction level, despite the farcical elements he includes.

Morrison writes (most often) deconstructionist fiction. He writes so readers can take a closer look at a genre, medium, or characters. This means the fourth wall barely exists, because he's constantly re-examining things we have to forget if we try to read it as fantasy fiction. He makes it multi-layered by attempting to make it work on the fantasy fiction level, and by alluding to elements of modern magic and his beliefs about reality.

It doesn't mean one approach is better than the other.

It doesn't mean that Morrison is the Genius-God of Pop Fiction.

It just means different writers have different goals.



As a piece of fantasy fiction, I felt like Morrison's run started out strong, but began to fall apart with flat, choppy dialogue and stories that began to focus so much on his subversive attack on past X-editors, X-creators, and X-fans that they seemed to lose the pace and passion of the original storylines he had started with. There were some BRILLIANT ideas that worked on the straightforward fantasy fiction level. But just as often, I found myself distracted by his use of characters as mere cyphers to make his point about the X-Men's place in pop culture.

But as a piece of deconstructionist fiction, I can appreciate what he did in his run, beginning to end. I have a real problem with people dismissing an analysis of Morrison's run as the critic simply "reaching too far" or "stretching" when the analyst is identifying the exact elements that Morrison himself said he wanted to address with his run.



If he flat-out said he wanted to do an analysis of the X-Men's world and the forces behind it--all masked in the guise of straightforward fantasy fiction--why is it so hard for readers to believe that's what he did?

(It's okay. Just by recognizing his multi-layered, deconstructionist approach, it doesn't mean you're saying you like it.)

[Beast]

Additionally, I don't understand why there continues to be this all-or-nothing attitude and 'choosing of sides' when either Morrison or Claremont are discussed. Each of their works has good and bad aspects, and surely each of us can favor one of them, but to have to continually damn the other? It's over. We can stop disrupting threads by turning them into Claremont vs. Morrison debates.
Actually I do enjoy both. And I concur that both have faults. I've said time and again that other than a few problems, I enjoy the first half of Morrison's run. It's once you get over the hump that things start falling apart. Assault on Weapon Plus and especially Planet X being the two biggest problems. I don't like everything he did the entire run, but I thought much of it was a fun read. Shame that all anyone ever seems to focus on is me saying I dislike it, and not where I like it. And I'm still the biggest Beak fan in the world. ;)

[Jared_Humpherys]

A suggestion...

Let's (myself included because I'm just as guilty of it) try leaving the words "you" and "you're" out of our posts within discussion threads. It almost forces you to discuss the topic or opinion instead of the poster. :)

Additionally, I don't understand why there continues to be this all-or-nothing attitude and 'choosing of sides' when either Morrison or Claremont are discussed. Each of their works has good and bad aspects, and surely each of us can favor one of them, but to have to continually damn the other? It's over. We can stop disrupting threads by turning them into Claremont vs. Morrison debates.

I still disagree with some of the article that Dan posted, particularly some of the opinions on Cyclops and Beast, and I've stated why earlier. Others disagree with my interpretation of Morrison's run, and vice versa, but no interpretation can be proven as fact so I'm not seeing the point of trying to convince others that a particular interpretation is the correct one.

I agree with you entirely, but I don't think you see the point I've been trying to make, which is that this thread was never intended to be a Morrison vs Claremont thread. It wasn't even brought into existence to discuss the pros and cons of the run or for an interpretation of the run and its impact on the X-mythos. The article and subsequent discussion was on the subtext, metaphors, similies, and personifications many have read into the run. Therefore, an interpretation saying that the run was flawed because of continuity errors is not on topic and has nothing to do with the thread. There have been plenty of other threads to discuss the run's qualities, pro and cons. Since there seems to be so much confusion on the matter(or outright refusal to adhere to the point of thread), I volunteered to create a new thread explicitly stating those parameters. The only reason I have yet to do so is that a particular group has yet to answer my earlier question on whether or not they would adhere to the thread guidelines if said thread were posted, and I'm not about to start another thread where the aforementioned parties will continue to spout off-topic rhetoric even in the face of said guidelines.

That said, I like most of Claremont's work. Heck, I liked some of what Chuck Austen wrote. This is not about me defending Morrison's work. It's about defending the integrity and original purpose of this thread.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

You're not supporting a character, though - you're supporting a collection of text and pictures that's been typed and scribbled by scores of writers and artists. Before the judaisim thing was added (and really, I think that's the most harmful thing that was done to the character - I'm not opposed to Jewish comics characters in the slightest, but I think it's hard to convincingly retcon tin-pot Nazis analouges into being said Jewish comics characters) he was a sci-fi Nazi. He did Mengle stuff to people, dabbled in cloning ubermensch and stuffed people in cars and threw them into ovens. If you're Morrison's run proves Magneto is right then you're saying killing people because they were born different is right. That's genocidal facisim. Oh, and most importantly of all -

MAGNETO ISN'T ACTUALLY REAL, DUDE

Reread my post that got you upset. I said I support the CHARACTER of Magneto. The most charismatic mutant in history. The one that was RIGHT all along. And Magneto is not JEWISH...he's Gypsy. Try again. Hell, even the most recent writers know that(Black Panther #7).

[Erik Lehnsherr]

They won't leave this thread alone, because they need to hurt us like they've been hurt by Morrison.

They don't understand that everything's just a matter of opinion & not fact.
Also they just see things as black and white. Either you like Claremont & hate Morrison. You can't like both.
Sorry my tastes aren't as limited.

They believe Morrison mocked Magneto('s character) & likewise they now mock us & our theories spawned by hyperactive imagination.

MY HUMBLE OPINION: (Yes it's just my own bloody OPINION, and YOU are entitled to have your own wonderful & hopefully well-informed opinion)

When i first read Morrison's, i felt that ALL my beloved X-characters were redeemed. They had been acting like sexy retarded zombies for almost a decade. Suddenly they were ALIVE agaiN~~!! Gloriously sensual & ALIVE~!!!~~~~

i have been a Claremont fan since Uncanny #200, and NO, i've never really read Morrison before. i think i flipped through the Invisibles once or twice before & never really got into it, so NO, i didn't read New X-Men through Morrison-tinted glasses.

The 90s MOCKED my X-Men.
The 90s MOCKED MAGNETO.

i couldn't believe Magneto was suddenly sooOoooo bad-ass & crafty enough to infiltrate the X-Men like that with some stupid "Chinese" alter-ego. (
HELLooOOOOOoO~??~?~?~ ANYBODY who listened to my anti-Xorn rants KNEW he wasn't no real Chinaman!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~)
Magneto actually DID something WICKEDLY AWESOME and a hot evil blonde telepathic minor even propositioned herself to the old man!!~~
Then he went out with a BANG. And took Jean with him.
And what a BANG it was.
(as opposed to all the fizzles that masqueraded as BANGs in the 90s)
THANK GOD.
They needed to GO.

How many more times do we need them ressurecting & coming back?
Collosus & Psylocke??!?
Love them, but right now i really don't give a damn about their presence in the X-books.

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, and it's JUST MY BLOODY OPINION: the X-Men ended with Morrison's run.
Sure i enjoy Whedon & Claremont's Uncanny, but i don't read it as continuity anymore. (WHAT continuity IS THERE anyway??)

Morrison put so much into the X-Men, now everything just reads likecheap pulp fiction & tabloid gossip.


WTF is this?! Magneto has ALWAYS done awesome and incredible acts of stragedy. He forced the world at large to make him ruler of Genosha and put in writing while the X-Men and Avengers could do nothing but watch and take it. Now, you may not LIKE how great that ending was because it came from the "90s" and there is a continual bitching basis about the time period but it was nothing short of brilliant and played to Magneto's stragetical strengths of the past. Remember when Magneto duped everyone in X-Men vs Avengers in #4 by certainly altering that Judge's decision to have him pay for his crimes? It was a smart move for it would of incited a mutant war by his supporters had he been found guilty but he chose to have it end in his favor just to deal with the humans' reactions to the entire decision.

And on the resurrection thing? He never died to begin with. It only appeared he did and it made sense since those "deaths" always seemed inconclusive to begin with. They ALWAYS had room to bring Magneto back. Just like with Doom in Fantastic Four everytime he gets lost in time or another world. It's the order of things.

[Be Stiff]

Reread my post that got you upset. I said I support the CHARACTER of Magneto. The most charismatic mutant in history. The one that was RIGHT all along. And Magneto is not JEWISH...he's Gypsy. Try again. Hell, even the most recent writers know that(Black Panther #7).

Nuh-uh. The Roma thing was a glitch. He's intended to be Jewish.

Magneto was charismatic. Hitler was charismatic. That's what I'm getting at - you're supporting a fictionalised ideology that would lead to mass murder in real life.

(Unless that was a joke, I know Black Panther is a football people like to kick for the lack of continuity)

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Nuh-uh. The Roma thing was a glitch. He's intended to be Jewish.

Magneto was charismatic. Hitler was charismatic. That's what I'm getting at - you're supporting a fictionalised ideology that would lead to mass murder in real life.

(Unless that was a joke, I know Black Panther is a football people like to kick for the lack of continuity)

OMG! HAHAHAHA! Well, let's put it like this...these days he's not taking the war to humans and is trying to change the world for the better. No matter the means...IF he's really behind what's going on. But during his run before that, he did not kill 6 million humans just for the sport of it. Everything Magneto has EVER done has been in self defense of mutantkind.

[mattbib]

I agree with you entirely, but I don't think you see the point I've been trying to make, which is that this thread was never intended to be a Morrison vs Claremont thread.I see your point perfectly, and more or less said the same thing. This thread was about Morrison yet it turned into a Morrison/Claremont debate.

See how when you add the "you" into your posts the post then appears to question my perceptions? That's exactly how threads derail and become "personal." The adamance to defend your point led you to totally miss mine.

So much for getting back onto topic...

[Charagon]

Claremont writes (most often) fantasy fiction. He writes so readers can get lost in the fantasy world. The fourth wall and/or the protection of a self-contained fantasy world are not to be broken (except for an occasional joke on a title page). He makes it multi-layered by including a ton of life experience, spiritual themes, and appreciation for humanity, culture, history, and romance.

Byrne (just to pick a writer neutral to this discussion) writes (most often) fantasy fiction with a constant wink & nod at readers. He writes so readers have the option of getting lost in the fantasy world or interpreting it all as pure humor. The fourth wall and/or the protection of a self-contained fantasy world are broken over and over again, because he always tries to keep the focus on the idea that these fictional characters are only fictional characters, and ridiculous ones at that. He makes it multi-layered by actually telling compelling drama that works on that pure fantasy fiction level, despite the farcical elements he includes.

Morrison writes (most often) deconstructionist fiction. He writes so readers can take a closer look at a genre, medium, or characters. This means the fourth wall barely exists, because he's constantly re-examining things we have to forget if we try to read it as fantasy fiction. He makes it multi-layered by attempting to make it work on the fantasy fiction level, and by alluding to elements of modern magic and his beliefs about reality.


This is my problem. Having a fantasy world I can get lost in is exactly why I read X-Men. I don't want it deconstructed. I want to see people with superpowers getting into fights and saving the world. That's why I read X-Men.

Morrison's run is the equivilant of going to a pizza place, ordering a pizza, and being served some raw dough, cold sauce, frozen cheese, and scattered toppings.


Morrison had all these ingrediants and refused to make a pizza out of them. He just sat there and said "This is dough, it's gooey. I'm going to tell you why it's gooey."

Meanwhile, I'm starving and screaming at him "I don't give a !@#$ what makes the sauce red, just cook me a damn pizza already!"

[Brian Cronin]

Yeah, y'all blew this one.

-Brian