mwm@dartvax.UUCP (M. W. Modrall) (10/06/84)
jeff - i live in california officially, when i'm not at school... is that far enough west for you???? as to the miko debate, i've already had this out with betsy perry here.... i liked the way that miko handled herself in wolvie's mini too, but the fact remains that heroes can't get married and stay heroes.... they always get picked on... the flash/iris, the atom/jean, green lantern/carol, Spiderman/Gwen Stacy, Cap/Sharon.... you may have heard of a role-playing game called champions.... cross between d&d and comics.... in that game, relatives, spouses, and girlfriends are taken as point liabilities, as they are in main stream comics.... wives are always getting kidnapped, beat up and tossed around while their heroes are combing the world never resting until the culprit is brought to justice (makes me want to choke- it's such a cliche) and then there's always the "If you loved me, you wouldn't go on patrol","I've got to honey, it's my job." lines... my overall point being that heroes have to be so good through so many hard- ships, that normals don't fit into the scheme very well. i for one have always thought that supers wives and girlfriends have been too long exploited for cheap plots. even if they are good characters in themselves, they restrict a heroes actions, make them responsible to someone else. a hero can't go out and give heroic sacrifice when he owes it to the spouse to stay alive, unless the spouse is a hero too... the spouses (spice?), on the otherhand, make great sacrificial lambs..... for one shining moment, rising to a heroic level, making a heroic sacrifice for a worthy cause, and furthuring the cause of goodness AND freeing the hero, and giving a renewed sence of purpose.... an admittedly callous good use of dead weight. on a tangent, however, i enjoyed frank miller's handling of heather in dd. as stick says, matt's head is a snake-pit... the relationship with heather brought out the worst in matt, exposing his all-too-human weaknesses, the fall of a hero through hubris, as it were. the termination of the re- lationship by natasha allowed matt to regain an even keel.... though i always thought that natasha got away with it too easily. jeff, i think you should keep in mind that we are dealing with fictional characters, and as such, they serve a literary purpose higher than their existence (yes, i will argue that comics are a form of literature). to me, miko would serve a better literary purpose as a sacrifice. those who disagree with this position, still shouldn't cast moral aspersions on others. i remain, with my honor intact, Mark Modrall mwm Dartmouth College "Shoot him!! Shoot him in his shiny bald head!!" -fc
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (10/09/84)
>jeff, i think you should keep in mind that we are dealing with fictional >characters, and as such, they serve a literary purpose higher than their >existence (yes, i will argue that comics are a form of literature). to >me, miko would serve a better literary purpose as a sacrifice. those who >disagree with this position, still shouldn't cast moral aspersions on others. > >i remain, with my honor intact, > >Mark Modrall >mwm Well, Heck, Mark, I don't think I *ever* cast moral aspersions on other -- I fling them, which gives one a better arc-to-altitude ratio... But seriously, I re-read my article, and I was being silly about challenging you to a duel and such (I'm much too cowardly for that... hit & run is more my style). Of course, everyone has there own opinions, and yours are as valid as mine. I'm sorry you took the "unfeeling brute" comments seriously; I thought I was being pretty clear about the intended humor (I resort only to ":-)" when I think it might be too subtle, and I don't believe it was here). And before this is relegated to a letter, I disagree with Mark's position about Miko; I also feel that comics can be "literature" (one of the most over/miss-used buzzwords in America today), and one of the factors is respect for the characters. Killing Miko off for the reasons he stated in his article seems more of a "calculated offing", which I am seeing more and more of in comics... something to get the old tear-ducts flowing, etc. It seems to me to be more of a matter that some writers can't provide emotional impact except by killing a minor or major character. Plot is not a tactical maneuver; it something to engage one's interest. This quota killing is one of the things that really bugs me about Marvel & Shooter, in general. And as to me taking these stories too seriously, hogwash. I have a very clearly-defined boundary between reality and fiction (i.e. Earth-Me and Earth-Pacific, Earth-Eclipse, etc.). Excuse me now, I have to get back to plotting the Crime of the Century before Holmes gets back from vacation... "...for DEATH awaits you all, with nasty sharp pointy teeth!" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
eric@aplvax.UUCP (10/11/84)
First, I wouldn't get too concerned about the current popularity of offing characters. After all, it assuming that it takes less time to off a character than to develop them, the practice will eventually lead to no more characters. As for "Earth-Me", is this a universe where all of us netter's are simply characters that Moriarity reads about? And what happens to us in the upcoming DC maxi-series? -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric