tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) (01/30/86)
OK, it is obviously imposssible to discuss X-Factor without incurring
personal attacks. So I will give up on it.
Now, as for the X-Men graphic novel. Why is everyone so crazy about this
thing? I have seen it rated above Moore's Swamp Thing, for Pete's sake!
(You remember Pete - he knew Superboy's secret identity before it all fell
apart....) People have made comments like "When Layton writes something as
good as the X-Men graphic novel, I'll pay attention to him"; but the first
Hercules limited series, written by Layton, was far more original and
entertaining than Claremont's graphic novel. The thing has been given the
highest ratings by more people than I care to think about. Why???
I don't think it is a bad graphic novel. It is probably the best one Marvel
has published, if you ignore "Starstruck", "Greenberg the Vampire", and "The
Dreaming City". It is a nice piece of light entertainment, though it has no
real theme. It rarely makes one choke on its absurdities, unlike most
superhero comics.
But it is completely unoriginal. The plot is just like a million other
superhero comics: villain does horribly evil thing, villain attacks good
guys and captures some, other good guys fight him, bad guy dies or is
captured. It has all the trite standbys of the genre, including the two
most frequently used: presumed death of characters that you know damn well
are still alive (three times!), and a mind-controlled team member turning on
his friends. The "Nightline" sequence is dull and does not convey
adequately the supposed magnitude of Xavier's defeat. The brainwashing
sequences are also dull, the sort of thing one expects a teenage acid-head
to write. The art involves some interesting framing, but there are far too
many small panels per page, and the contents of the panels are standard
Marvel style pencils and inks, with slightly superior coloring. Boring
fight scenes, including the absolute worst, a Danger Room sequence, and mock
heroism (e.g., the woman's jump from the elevator, which reminds me of the
speeches characters make on situation comedies, eliciting cheers from the
audience as if it took the actor some bravery to say the lines) abound. The
same boring "talk or I'll kill you" scene is used three times. The
characters make speeches every few pages, talking to themselves if there is
no audience handy. Cyclops has no characterization at all until the end,
when he gets to make a generic noble speech, typical of Claremont's abuse of
this character.
But the worst part, and also the truest to the infantile conventions of
superhero comics, is the villain. I dislike intolerant fundamentalist
preachers; in fact, it would not be off the mark to say that I hate them.
That is probably the chief reason I object to Stryker (subtle name, eh?).
Like horror fiction, superhero fiction almost always trivializes evil by
making it far more clear-cut than anything in real life. Real evil usually
nibbles away at good. It is very rarely embodied in a demonic man who
orders children slaughtered. The evil of fundamentalist ministers does not
need murder added to make it evil. Exaggerating it to this point achieves
only one thing: anyone friendly to such ministers, say a 700 Club fan, will
simply ignore it as a grotesque and off-base parody, which it is. Anyone
else has learned nothing.
I think we all know that child-killers are evil. Therefore, there is no
real theme in fighting a child-killer, any more than in bashing Skarlak, The
Flatulent Robotoid from Dimension 43. Exaggerating evil to this extent
destroys any opportunity to make a point about REAL evil, such as those
people (like the models for Stryker) who would take away our rights to free
speech, free reproduction, free religion. What is the point in even writing
something with so little theme, and what is the point of reading it? A bit
of vicarious power-tripping as the white hats beat up the black hats (the
primacy of this is shown by the thrice-repeated sadistic interrogation
scene) and perhaps a feeling of self-justification as one thinks, "Well, I
certainly would never be so evil." What has been revealed to the reader?
Absolutely nothing. Such essentially mindless and frivolous entertainment
has its place -- I read the thing, didn't I? -- but to put it on a high
pedestal is ridiculous. Next, GI Joe will be up for a Pulitzer for its
sophisticated treatments of international relations.
Stryker also, naturally, has an origin story. Have I already said something
about the conventions of superhero comics? Oh good, then I don't have to
say it again. How many of us had our entire character defined in a single
event? It's more a matter of a number of factors spread out over deacades
adding up to produce us, and any single event revealing only a small part of
our character. Not so in superhero comics. Simplistic, Claremont-style
characterizations fit right in with this one-event summary of a character;
but if I want this sort of thing, I'll read romance novels.
The mutant-hating is also essentially themeless. This idea can be used to
good effect: Roger Stern did it in the issue of the Avengers where the
bigots were saying, "I ain't got nothing against muties and metalheads, but
they're making the whole place dangerous". This shows something about the
nature of prejudice; this has a theme. But just having someone say "Mutants
are spawns of Satan, and should be destroyed" says nothing about prejudice.
It is just the usual cut-and-dried super-villainous motivation. Yawn.
Another excuse for a fight scene.
Overall, I don't understand why this altogether typical and unoriginal
superhero comic is being treated as the greatest thing since sliced bits.
I've read it several times looking for some vestige of a theme, an original
plot, or complex characterizations, in vain. It maintains entertainment
value by delivering a continual sequence of emotional shocks, but so does
"General Hospital". (In fact, a lot of the dialogue is reminiscent of soap
operas, now that I think of it: especially the Kitty-Illyana scene and the
ending, which more than satisfy the FDA minimum daily allowance of smarmy
sentimentality.) Would someone care to enlighten me on the virtues of this
marvelous piece of work, without feeling the need to insult me in the
process? (Ha ha ha...)
-=-
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot, Centram Systems West, Berkeley
uucp: {sun,lll-crg,well,dual,ptsfa,frog,decvax}!hoptoad!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 | Do not remove this quip under penalty of law.m1b@rayssd.UUCP (M. Joseph Barone) (02/03/86)
In the spring and summer of 1985, net.movies was 'terrorized'
by a fellow named Kelvin Thompson with outrageously funny reviews of
old movies. He managed to provoke quite a few people into flaming him.
Has he moved his sights over to net.comics and changed his name? The
MO is stikingly similar.
Joe Barone, {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5}!rayssd!m1b
Raytheon Co, Submarine Signal Div., 1847 West Main Rd, Portsmouth, RI 02871dtuttle@uw-june (David C. Tuttle) (02/05/86)
> Subject: God Loves, Claremont Kills (the theme, that is) > Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot, Centram Systems West, Berkeley > Now, as for the X-Men graphic novel. Why is everyone so crazy about this > thing?... > ...It rarely makes one choke on its absurdities, unlike most > superhero comics... > But it is completely unoriginal. The plot is just like a million other > superhero comics... > But the worst part, and also the truest to the infantile conventions of > superhero comics, is the villain... Are you criticizing one comic book, or a whole genre of comic books? I like "God Loves, Man Kills", and I consider it one of the best superhero comics I own. I like it as a superhero comic. I do not judge it under other pretenses. Therefore, I cannot defend this comic on your terms. My apples, your oranges... > Such essentially mindless and frivolous entertainment has its place... Absolutely! And, apparently, you are not in that place, while I would venture to guess that most readers of net.comics are. Let's not lose sight of the fact that comics are entertainment, mindless, frivolous, and otherwise. I am reminded of the old joke about the man who dropped a coin in a dark room, and looks for it in another room because the light's better... > Overall, I don't understand why this altogether typical and unoriginal > superhero comic is being treated as the greatest thing since sliced bits. > I've read it several times looking for some vestige of a theme, an original > plot, or complex characterizations, in vain... Perhaps you are looking for the wrong things. Or perhaps you are looking too closely, or for too much. I won't explain why I think this is a great comic -- I couldn't do it justice, and it probably would be in a context that you have already discounted as mindless and frivolous. I am genuinely interested in what you consider to be "original" or "complex". The references you make to Layton's work strike me as either irrelevant or contradictory. Further elaboration may help resolve this matter (but then again...). ========== ========== David C. Tuttle Department of Computer Science, University of Washington [ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax]!uw-beaver!uw-june!dtuttle dtuttle@uw-june.ARPA ========== ========== POSTSCRIPT: > Would someone care to enlighten me on the virtues of this marvelous piece > of work, without feeling the need to insult me in the process? (Ha ha ha...) Net.comics is the best-behaved newsgroup I read. I, too, would like to keep it that way. I, personally, find the tone of your news postings to be mocking and condescending, containing (in moderate quantities) those very elements that you seek to avoid in our responses. So, please, let us "stop wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood." (John Prine, "Dear Abby")
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/06/86)
> In the spring and summer of 1985, net.movies was 'terrorized' > by a fellow named Kelvin Thompson with outrageously funny reviews of > old movies. He managed to provoke quite a few people into flaming him. > Has he moved his sights over to net.comics and changed his name? The > MO is stikingly similar. I see no such resemblance. What I find funny is that there are people who can't fathom the concept of others actually disliking Claremont. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "Hideously disfigured by Indian curse? We can help! Call (511) 338-0959 for an appointment."