ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (12/10/85)
> Why is everyone so down on X-Factor???? [...] > Among other things, we finally have a reasonable characterization > of Cyclops, which Claremont was never able to do ... > There is no sentimentality here, just honest emotion, and > that in itself puts it light-years ahead of Claremont's soap operatic > trash. A 'reasonable characterization' of Cyclops? Is it reasonable to expect that a man who has in the past always been able to pick up the pieces and go on with life is now paralyzed by the return of an ex-lover? What happened to the Scott I saw at Jean's grave ("I loved you, Jean. I love Madelyne. I'm glad she isn't you.") Is it reasonable (or honest) to think that Scott's admirably developed moral sense will fink out on him to the point where *he knows* he is being destructive to three people and he wallows in remorse and helplessness to the point of being savagely cutting to Warren Worthington for trying to help? Is it not sentimentality to extend the X-Men's high school reunion into a full-fledged retro-evolution? > I've been trying to figure out the negative reactions, and I've come > up with two main ideas. First, people feel that anything would have > to be Swamp Thing's quality or better to make up for the idiotic > stories where Jean Grey returned. [...] Second, people are > only familiar with the Claremont X-Men and expected something similar. First, I don't read Swamp Thing nor do I feel that much of the writing touted on the net as 'quality' suits my tastes (ST, AF!, JS, AB). Second, I have read the X-Men from 1-203 and, thanks to the Reed comics library, can access them any time I want (plug, plug) -- but I hardly "expected" that Layton would completely abandon any development in the characters' personalities made since, say, #42. The X-Men have not *all* been stuck at the bottom of Jamaica Bay; they have all changed over the years, and Layton has completely ignored these changes. > Wake up, guys; THESE are the X-Men, the Stan Lee characters, not those > johnny-come-lately jerks that Claremont jacks off to pictures of. > They are infinitely better than that Len Wein-created cast of losers > and stereotypes. [...] I prefer > not to think that everyone here is totally without taste, so I > must assume that people were expecting something different, and so see > this book only in terms of their expectations. [...] Rudeness, Tim, convinces very few people. Nor does your assumption that you are the sole arbiter of "taste" on the net. > PS. My love Pam, who's about to begin her Ph.D. in Writing, agrees > with me concerning the relative quality of this book and Claremont's > drivel. Is it possible a classics scholar knows some things you > don't? Nah, you read comics and science fiction, not those outdated > old farts like Dickens and Shakespeare and James, so you must have > highly discerning standards of plot and characterization.... > Tim Maroney Well, if we are going to wave credentials about...No, I won't fall into that trap. Your snide reference to comics and science fiction as opposed to "Dickens and Shakespeare and James" is uncalled for here, especially in the light of the discussion on the net of the worth of comic books. I read and enjoy classics (history-lit majors have to, it comes with the territory) and I know I am no exception, so I hope you will refrain, in future, from making sweeping generalizations about the taste, background, and standards of this net. Ellen Eades -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - tektronix!reed!ellen