wall@drzeus.DEC (David F. Wall MRO1-1/M31 DTN: 297-6882) (12/05/85)
Hmmmmm. After spending some time trying to decide whether or not Tim Maroney's 2-Dec-1985 posting about X-Factor was serious, I decided it was. Since he didn't flame, I'm going to try not to. Beginning at the beginning, then.... Why is everyone so down on X-Factor? Because if you're a long time fan, even if you haven't read the Jean Grey resurrection stories, you can't look at a single panel of it and not know that they screwed up one of the five best storylines in comics history to produce this thing. Of course, given what your opinions appear to be on Claremont's writing, you may not have this feeling. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but for me and I suspect for other people this does a lot to make them not like the book as much as they might have. They ruined a classic story in the name of hyping this book. As for a reasonable characterization of Cyclops, that depends on what you think is reasonable. I don't think ramming characters back into a mold they have not fit for many years (real or Marvel time) is all that reasonable. If this were a retrospective on the original X-Men, it would be different. One of the things that really annoys me about all this has to do with Angel, Iceman, and the Beast. Now I was never really that fond of the New Defenders, but to me, reasonable characterizations would have the three of them having been changed by the experience of the final battle with Moondragon in #152. People they worked with died, and it doesn't seem to have bothered them at all, which is not the way it ought to be. Many long-time fans have made the assertion that THESE are the X-Men. That's not quite true. These *were* the X-Men. Then, supposedly, they grew up, and went on to other things, as adults, to get on with their lives. Even if you ignore everything that's happened since X-Men #94, that would be a reasonable assumption to make, and they're just the same. This isn't authentic characterization for me. The members of X-Factor give me the general feeling that the kids in Room 222 did -- they're frozen in time. The only complex relationship I've perceived so far in X-Factor is the Jean-Scott-Madelaine thing. And Chris Claremont is responsible for that. In fact, this angle is the only really new thing Layton's done with Cyclops. In issue 2 he begins to feel like a slug, and he oughta, 'cause he is one. He's not only socially inept, he's immature. My fondest hope for X-Factor is Maddy taking Scott to court and getting every penny X-Factor makes in child support. Now *that* would be authentic. I don't think anyone at Marvel will be brave enough to do it, though. Are you saying we expected X-Factor to be the best team book on the market next to BATO, or that you think it's the best team book on the market? Either way, BATO is only going to be with us for another issue or so. And if you want some complicated relationships, you oughta take a look at The New Teen Titans. Apparently, the thing between Changeling and Terra was just the beginning. Now Donna's married, Starfire had to get married to someone she doesn't love, Jericho came home to find out Kole got zapped in Crisis, it just doesn't end. This is not to say I think X-Men or New Mutants has been all that hot lately. You're perfectly right about its quality of late -- as far as I'm concerned the last good X-Men story ended with the issue just before the New Mutants debuted. That doesn't place X-Factor up on a pedastal, though. Your P.S. was kind of tacky, Tim. Waving the lady's academic achievements in our face, particularly in a discussion about a comic book, is kind of silly. Sure, she knows things we don't -- about classics. You didn't tell us whether or not she's a long time comics reader, or which of Claremont's stuff you're using in the comparison. You're not going to start comparing Dickens and Joyce and Shakespeare to Layton or Claremont or anyone else in the industry of comics, are you? None of them had the editorial millstone of Jim Shooter around their necks, none of them had to produce a story every five weeks, and none of them had to work within constraints set down by the last people to write about their characters. As for my standards of plot and characterization, you've never even met me, so what do you know? Still, one has to give you credit for saying what's on your mind, and I suspect you will take an awful lot of flak for it. To paraphrase Hank McCoy, "The Usenet biz is like that, though." Let Bob Layton do something like "God Loves, Man Kills," and maybe I'll become a believer. In the meantime, I just have to hope both of them get better. "There was NO CORPSE!" David F. Wall, Digital Equipment Corportaion HPSCAD, Marlboro, MA decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-drzeus!wall
hutch@hammer.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (12/10/85)
In article <1614@decwrl.UUCP> wall@drzeus.DEC (David F. Wall) writes: >Your P.S. was kind of tacky, Tim. Waving the lady's academic achievements in >our face, particularly in a discussion about a comic book, is kind of silly. >Sure, she knows things we don't -- about classics. You didn't tell us whether >or not she's a long time comics reader, or which of Claremont's stuff you're >using in the comparison. You're not going to start comparing Dickens and Joyce >and Shakespeare to Layton or Claremont or anyone else in the industry of >comics, are you? None of them had the editorial millstone of Jim Shooter >around their necks, none of them had to produce a story every five weeks, and >none of them had to work within constraints set down by the last people to >write about their characters. It isn't a good idea to generalize, Dave. Dickens did indeed have to produce a story every five weeks. In fact, he was writing a story a week, at the most high-pressure periods in his life, and the editors were constantly after him to create more of the same old stuff. He had constant problems with literary thieves publishing rip-offs of his stories, his editors were constantly badgering him to produce more, and he had no rights to his stories once they were sold. Dickens was the comic books of his time. Shakespeare was, likewise, constantly pressured to do more of the same old stuff. His stories were hackneyed even for the time, and were often stolen whole-cloth from other writers. Sure, he had a genius for putting the words together, but a LOT of his work is elegant dirty puns. He was POPULAR, he was not considered "high classical" writing. Yes, we CAN compare the "classics" with comics. But they aren't the same media. Shakespeare wrote plays and sonnets. Dickens wrote prose stories in an incredible flowery overblown style. Claremont writes intricate, socially aware (to the point of excess) character studies which are a form of modern fairy tale, collaborating with graphic illustrators. Believe it, if technology had been there at Dickens' time to do as many illustrations in a single printing, they would have had comics, or something very like them. Hutch