New Avengers #10: The Sentry Conclusion (No Spoilers)
badth...@yahoo.com
all..zzzzzzzz.
Oh, sorry. I must have dozed off. The same way I dozed off reading
it. The same way I dozed off then they originally introduced The
Sentry years ago and only bought two of the issues.
I'm sorry, but Superman in the Marvel U is just boring. He's fine for
the DCU and I love him there, but for some reason amidst superhumans
with godlike powers (as opposed to DC's gods with human frailties) he
sticks out like a sore thumb and all the complaints people level
against the real thing suddenly become apparent to me here. It's
always fun when a Superman doppleganger shows up (Hyperion, Gladiator,
Count Nefaria, Ethan Edwards/Skrull) because it's an obvious "in" joke,
if outright parody, but told straight there's no place for him here
(though I did like the long overdue destruction of Carnage). Stan &
Jack never saw fit to create an MU Superman and you can totally see
their wisdom. I've reached my breaking point with the obvious
indulgence of Bendis with B-list characters he likes. Time to simply
bring back Thor to be the "caped muscle" of the team (if for no other
reason, his speech pattern prevents Bendis from making him sound just
like everyone else).
And page after page after page of talking heads didn't make it go down
easier. Lovely art, though. Too bad it was wasted.
I've stuck with this book long enough. Only the presence of Captain
America has kept me on this long, but now it's time to go.
Jon J. Yeager
news:1127366977.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I've stuck with this book long enough. Only the presence of Captain
> America has kept me on this long, but now it's time to go.
Dude, that's not how it works. Have you not been reading Shawn and SRS? For
God's sake, SRS has been consulted for HEROES RETURN!
When you find something terrible, in bad taste, or even downright insulting
to every last virtue you hold dear, the proper reaction is to make sure you
are first in line to buy the next issue.
Who do you think you are by breaking this convention, anyway?
Jon
--
Kurt: "There was Bucky Barnes, Fred Davis, Jack
Monroe, Lemar Hoskin and Rikki Barnes, at least,
plus Ultimate Bucky and various What-If Buckies."
rc022586: "Which one was the black Bucky?"
Kurt: "A list of names like that and you can't tell
which one was the black guy?"
badth...@yahoo.com
socket, but I'm getting old and there are better things to do than to
pay to annoyed.
Jon J. Yeager
news:1127408965.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Normally it is my wont to continually stick my wet finger into the wall
> socket, but I'm getting old and there are better things to do than to
> pay to annoyed.
You've changed, man. You've CHANGED!
badth...@yahoo.com
Adam Cadre
> Time to simply bring back Thor to be the "caped muscle" of the
> team (if for no other reason, his speech pattern prevents Bendis
> from making him sound just like everyone else).
CAGE: Yo, Thor, let me see that hammer.
THOR: What?
CAGE: The hammer.
THOR: Sacred Mjolnir?
CAGE: That the name of the hammer?
THOR: Verily.
CAGE: Give it here. I want to borrow it for a sec.
THOR: Thou canst not.
CAGE: What?
THOR: Thou canst not.
CAGE: Why not?
THOR: 'Tis enchanted.
CAGE: Enchanted?
THOR: Aye.
CAGE: The hammer's enchanted?
THOR: Verily. 'Tis my hammer. 'Tis enchanted. 'Tis my enchanted
hammer.
CAGE: So?
THOR: So-- so Odin -- (the ALL-father Odin) -- did place upon yon
hammer an enchantment.
CAGE: So?
THOR: So thou canst -- I am trying to EXPLAIN unto thee, varlet --
thou canst-- canst-- thou simply canst not wield mine hammer!
'Tis enchanted!
CAGE: Enchanted.
THOR: Verily.
CAGE: So I can't even, can't even have a looksee.
THOR: Nay. Nay is what I say unto thee. I say thee nay.
CAGE: Nay?
THOR: Nay.
-----
Adam Cadre, Holyoke, MA
http://adamcadre.ac
Nathan P. Mahney
news:gKidnaGdnvU...@comcast.com...
You're getting entirely too good at this.
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
THE MAHNEY PIT -- http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney
NERDBLOG -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/nathanpmahney
badth...@yahoo.com
Steven R. Stahl
I don't buy NEW AVENGERS to be annoyed, or for entertainment; I buy the
series, in part, for its instructional value: How not to write, how not
to plot, and how not to edit. Each issue could be compared to a tissue
sample that I look at to spot diseased cells. In that regard, NA is
worth the money.
Three things that stood out about NA #9: Major elements in the Sentry
storyline were insanity, mind control, and altering reality (creating
the Void). Hm, where have I seen those before. . . Are they in NA #10
too? The suspense is just painful.
It's not surprising that Bendis would be attracted to the Sentry, or,
given his plotting disabilities, that he'd find a Superman (Marvelman)
clone attractive as well.
SRS
Shawn H
: indulgence of Bendis with B-list characters he likes. Time to simply
: bring back Thor to be the "caped muscle" of the team (if for no other
: reason, his speech pattern prevents Bendis from making him sound just
: like everyone else).
Do you think Bendis is capable? Or would it be like Leifield-speak on
Heroes Reborn?
: And page after page after page of talking heads didn't make it go down
: easier. Lovely art, though. Too bad it was wasted.
Talking Emma Heads. I never knew Emma would even bother to go on like
that, total verbal overkill.
: I've stuck with this book long enough. Only the presence of Captain
: America has kept me on this long, but now it's time to go.
He's having more fun in Ultimates, anyway.
Shawn H.
Jon J. Yeager
news:1127492991.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> badth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Normally it is my wont to continually stick my wet finger into the wall
>> socket, but I'm getting old and there are better things to do than to
>> pay to annoyed.
>
> I don't buy NEW AVENGERS to be annoyed, or for entertainment; I buy the
> series, in part, for its instructional value: How not to write, how not
> to plot, and how not to edit. Each issue could be compared to a tissue
> sample that I look at to spot diseased cells. In that regard, NA is
> worth the money.
Hey, sounds like a perfectly plausible explanation to me. Like a musician
being first in line at the record store to buy the latest Bon Jovi album,
single, DVD or special edition EP.
He hates them, of course. He's only buying these things to learn what NOT to
do. The fact that this makes him 100% fluent in all things Bon Jovi is a
necessary side-effect.
In fact, if he repeats this to himself often enough, he may become
completely oblivious to the fact that he's become something of a Bon Jovi
EXPERT.
Imagine a life dedicated to the study of things you hate. Imagine a life of
becoming an expert at that which repels you.
You don't HAVE to imagine that life, do you Steven?
bar...@shentel.net
Uh, it's not so implausible. Anyone connected to the justice system
should be those things in fact.
And judging by the reviews I read in the Washington post so is anyone
who's a critic of any sort.
JLB
scott34494
money thing... when they just explained how Tony could afford Stark
Tower? It was obvious from the start that Bendis eventually would,
except to those who y'now, need to find a reason to bitch and whine
this second for any reason NOW.
Jon J. Yeager
news:1127502908.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Uh, it's not so implausible. Anyone connected to the justice system
> should be those things in fact.
>
> And judging by the reviews I read in the Washington post so is anyone
> who's a critic of any sort.
"Uh", because reading comic books and working for the CIA is the same thing.
My blindness shames me. Thanks for directing me towards the light.
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
news:1127513701.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
This coming from the guy who whined like a little girl when the Spider-Man
writer decided Wolverine could recover from a 100-story fall, but said
nothing when Wolverine needed a couple of seconds to recover from his throat
being slashed wide open. Because Bendis wrote the latter, not the former.
Bendis has his haters, who flood this group with nothing but hate and
criticism in his direction. He also has his groupies, who can see him doing
no wrong, and don't have the inner fortitude to recognize any of his
failings because it would mean agreeing with someone from the opposite camp.
Can't have that. Y'all have your pride, after all.
And somewhere in the middle -- in the land of reason -- are those of us who
can recognize Bendis' many mistakes, as well as congratulate him for his
many good ideas.
The rest of you are fucking whackjobs. Fanboy whackjobs that are 100%
deserving of every last insult thrown at you by jocks and women behind your
backs your entire lives.
scott34494
Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127513701.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > So how many people feel stupid about complaining about the Avengers
> > money thing... when they just explained how Tony could afford Stark
> > Tower? It was obvious from the start that Bendis eventually would,
> > except to those who y'now, need to find a reason to bitch and whine
> > this second for any reason NOW.
>
> This coming from the guy who whined like a little girl when the Spider-Man
> writer decided Wolverine could recover from a 100-story fall,
That would require invulnerablity.
but said
> nothing when Wolverine needed a couple of seconds to recover from his throat
> being slashed wide open.
That would require a healing factor.
What about this is so hard to understand?
Jon J. Yeager
There's nothing to understand. You love Brian Bendis. We get it.
Now, as far as people looking stupid after someone was proven right... how
stupid do YOU feel after it's been proven that your hero Bendis resurrected
Hawkeye just like I said he did 7 months after killing him, one month off my
original prediction? You argued that one even after the resurrection.
Can't do it, can you? Can't concede that one to me. Too much pride. Too much
insecurity.
Now maybe you understand why all those people will never concede the Stark
money thing to you. Quit whining and move on.
scott34494
Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127516685.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> >> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1127513701.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > So how many people feel stupid about complaining about the Avengers
> >> > money thing... when they just explained how Tony could afford Stark
> >> > Tower? It was obvious from the start that Bendis eventually would,
> >> > except to those who y'now, need to find a reason to bitch and whine
> >> > this second for any reason NOW.
> >>
> >> This coming from the guy who whined like a little girl when the
> >> Spider-Man
> >> writer decided Wolverine could recover from a 100-story fall,
> >
> > That would require invulnerablity.
> >
> >> but said nothing when Wolverine needed a couple of seconds
> >> to recover from his throat being slashed wide open.
> >
> > That would require a healing factor.
> >
> > What about this is so hard to understand?
>
> There's nothing to understand. You love Brian Bendis. We get it.
>
> Now, as far as people looking stupid after someone was proven right... how
> stupid do YOU feel after it's been proven that your hero Bendis resurrected
> Hawkeye just like I said he did 7 months after killing him, one month off my
> original prediction? Y
You said Fabian and Busiek would do it in Thunderbolts. Kinda like
being sorta right but not really, isn't it?
I could care less whether anyone concedes the tower thing. Most people
on this board primarily like to bitch and moan (Shawn likes to bitch
and moan and misuse academic theory). Conceding things gets in the way
of the bitching and moaning. I expect very little from anyone here.
You kept trying to to push Busiek and Fabian to say that they were
bitter over Avengers Disassembled (and all the evidence says they
weren't) because you wanted your own bitching and moaning to be
validated. When Busiek failed to do so, you called him a liar.
The tower thing was yesterdays topic, everyone's already forgotten
about it. There's new things to bitch and moan about. Carry on!
Shawn H
: So how many people feel stupid about complaining about the Avengers
Yeah, it's almost like comics come out in seperate issues that should make
sense on their own.
And what explanation? That the Sentry willed it to be? That's called deus
ex machina, and is generally frowned upon. Cute throwaway lines aren't
saving this wreck.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: The rest of you are fucking whackjobs. Fanboy whackjobs that are 100%
: deserving of every last insult thrown at you by jocks and women behind your
: backs your entire lives.
You're so racist. Why leave out the fags and the nerds who insult us, too?
Shawn H.
Steven R. Stahl
series has been so terrible in so many different ways that direct
issue-to-issue comparisons are difficult. In this issue, the handling
of telepathy is a mess. "Subconscious" doesn't mean what Bendis
wants it to mean (see
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subconscious ). Emma Frost
can't yank Lindy's spirit out of her body; that requires magic. She
can't convert Lindy's body to psionic energy and bring the energy
into Reynolds's brain; that's beyond her power. Bendis wants nice
pictures in the story, though, so the story depicts what appears to be
Lindy's spirit leaving her body, but that's not the case. Her mind
(subconscious??!) physically left the body instead, even though the
mind can't function outside of the brain; the brain is where all
those wonderful memories are stored.
In short, the story can't work as written. All the nice pictures are
actually irrelevant to the actions; Frost could have acted as a
telepathic bridge between Lindy and her husband, but that would result
in all three being in mere trances, and the poor reader couldn't have
THAT! What he gets instead are pictures that make no sense.
Then, as if the parallels to "reality-altering" Wanda weren't
clear enough, Iron Man emphasizes them by saying "And we failed them
because we didn't reach out when we should have."
So, yet another excellent example of how *not* to write a story, plus a
bonus-yet another reference to the Avengers' failure to save poor
Wanda from the insanity bubbling madly in her subconscious, unknown to
anyone, even all the writers between Byrne and Bendis. Since Paul
Jenkins is featured in this particular mess, perhaps he'd be kind
enough to justify Bendis's handling of Wanda with reasoning that
adults can appreciate.
SRS
scott34494
Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> I read NEW AVENGERS #10 Friday afternoon. Bendis's writing on the
> series has been so terrible in so many different ways that direct
> issue-to-issue comparisons are difficult. In this issue, the handling
> of telepathy is a mess. "Subconscious" doesn't mean what Bendis
> wants it to mean (see
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subconscious ). Emma Frost
> can't yank Lindy's spirit out of her body; that requires magic.
Have you, like, never read a Marvel comic before?
You and Shawn are always like, "Bendis can't write comics that are
consistent with older comics, bad Bendis!"
Everything Bendis does that you complain about in consistent with older
stories. But when your not complaining about this and that your
complaining that he doesn't respect continuity. Idiots.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : So how many people feel stupid about complaining about the Avengers
> : money thing... when they just explained how Tony could afford Stark
> : Tower? It was obvious from the start that Bendis eventually would,
> : except to those who y'now, need to find a reason to bitch and whine
> : this second for any reason NOW.
>
> Yeah, it's almost like comics come out in seperate issues that should make
> sense on their own.
They always made sense to anyone with the half brain to realise that
Iron-man's motivations were not revealed, but I know you come from the
old school of bad comic writing, so can't understand it unless you have
thought bubbles over Captain America's head saying "I don't understand
Iron-man's motivations!!!!???" Like your hero Claremont does.
>
> And what explanation? That the Sentry willed it to be? That's called deus
> ex machina,
No it isn't. That's another word you don't understand. Deux Ex
Machina refers to a story being resolved by pulling something out of
nowhere. Sentry tower being there, and invisible, was previous
continuity. It's good writing.
Robert Wiacek
>Emma Frost
> can't yank Lindy's spirit out of her body; that requires magic. She
> can't convert Lindy's body to psionic energy and bring the energy
> into Reynolds's brain; that's beyond her power.
Emma Frost didn't convert Lindy's body into psionic energy, but she can most
certainly yank someone's subconscious/astral form/spirit/whatever out of
someone body. This is a standard telepathic ability in Marvel.
Rob
Robert Wiacek
This complaint is more along the lines of Bendis not respecting SRS's
continuity and how powers should work in the Marvel Universe. By far, this
is one of the more sillier complaints that he has made.
But keep on buying those comics; with Bendis selling in the 150K, it will
insure that a) he'll stay on NA for a very long time and b) other writers
will start copying his style.
Rob
Jon J. Yeager
> being sorta right but not really, isn't it?
No, it's not. I was right about the cover of #502. I was right about the
resurrection. And I was right guesstimating how long it would take to do.
I never claimed the resurrection would occur in New Thunderbolts. I said
that's where he's going when he returns. You going to bet against me again?
I think you know better this time.
Then again, that would require the ability to learn from past mistakes -- an
ability you clearly don't possess.
> I could care less whether anyone concedes the tower thing.
Yeah, we could all see that when you posted : "So how many people feel
stupid about complaining about the Avengers money thing... when they just
explained how Tony could afford Stark Tower?"
You weren't seeking for anyone to concede anything AT ALL.
*rolls eyes*
> Most people on this board primarily like to bitch and moan
You mean like the ones who write hundreds of posts arguing that Wolverine
cannot fall from 100 stories and survive?
> Conceding things gets in the way of the bitching and moaning.
> I expect very little from anyone here.
The feeling is mutual. But expecting little from anyone here won't stop you
from spending hours a day writing 10-page essays for me to skip over, is it?
> The tower thing was yesterdays topic, everyone's already forgotten
> about it.
They've forgotten about it because you were the author. Or don't you think
we've noticed that every single time you address your imaginary audience, no
one ever replies?
The only way you've managed to generate replies by anyone is by biting the
ankles of the same 2-3 guys who've shown you anykind of attention in the
past.
> There's new things to bitch and moan about. Carry on!
And yet you're still pulling an SRS and quoting real-world facts to Robert
explaining why Wolverine shouldn't survive 100-story falls.
Every once in a while, you'll have a brief moment of clarity. You'll realize
how futile all of your whining and flaming is... and you'll either post
another "You win, I quit, I'm done with you" retirement post (which will
last 10 minutes, tops) or another sensible "I am above this crap" post like
this one.
But never once will you acknowledge your own failings. Even during these
contrived "moment of clarity" that hit you every now and then.
And before you know it, you're typing out another 10-page essay on why it's
technically impossible for Superman to fly without wings or somekind of
propulsion device, which inevitably will turn into another patented Scott
Dubin flamefest.
Who're you kidding, Scott? You wanna show us you're really above this crap?
Don't tell us. Show us.
Jon J. Yeager
news:dh2f4c$tmc$5...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> Jon J. Yeager <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> : The rest of you are fucking whackjobs. Fanboy whackjobs that are 100%
> : deserving of every last insult thrown at you by jocks and women behind
> your
> : backs your entire lives.
>
> You're so racist.
Yes, Shawn. Fanboys are a race.
*rolls eyes*
Never change, "Professor".
Jon J. Yeager
news:1127580129.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for this post! I was *wondering* whether SRS would give this arc
thumbs up or down! In fact, the anticipation of finding out was almost
unbrearable.
scott34494
Shawn H
: "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: > Jon J. Yeager <n...@spam.com> wrote:
: >
: > : The rest of you are fucking whackjobs. Fanboy whackjobs that are 100%
: > : deserving of every last insult thrown at you by jocks and women behind
: > your
: > : backs your entire lives.
: >
: > You're so racist.
: Yes, Shawn. Fanboys are a race.
Dishes it out, can't take it. Doesn't even recognize it.
Shawn H.
bar...@shentel.net
Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> I read NEW AVENGERS #10 Friday afternoon. Bendis's writing on the
> series has been so terrible in so many different ways that direct
> issue-to-issue comparisons are difficult. In this issue, the handling
> of telepathy is a mess. "Subconscious" doesn't mean what Bendis
> wants it to mean (see
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subconscious ). Emma Frost
> can't yank Lindy's spirit out of her body; that requires magic. She
> can't convert Lindy's body to psionic energy and bring the energy
> into Reynolds's brain; that's beyond her power. Bendis wants nice
> pictures in the story, though, so the story depicts what appears to be
> Lindy's spirit leaving her body, but that's not the case. Her mind
> (subconscious??!) physically left the body instead, even though the
> mind can't function outside of the brain; the brain is where all
> those wonderful memories are stored.
Lindy collapsed. I saw nothing that ever suggested her body was
converted to psionic energy. Have you ever read old X-men stories
where Charles Xavier goes onto the astral plane? He's got this blue
genderless body that can fly around anywhere?
JLB
> SRS
Donnacha DeLong
>> of
>> becoming an expert at that which repels you.
>>
>> You don't HAVE to imagine that life, do you Steven?
>>
>> Jon
>
> Uh, it's not so implausible. Anyone connected to the justice system
> should be those things in fact.
>
think about the world.
D.
Nathan P. Mahney
You know, Bendis had Wolverine surviving a fall from the helicarrier in
House of M. Healing factor, invulnerability, or sycophancy?
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
THE MAHNEY PIT -- http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney
NERDBLOG -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/nathanpmahney
scott34494
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127516685.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> > > "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1127513701.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > So how many people feel stupid about complaining about the Avengers
> > > > money thing... when they just explained how Tony could afford Stark
> > > > Tower? It was obvious from the start that Bendis eventually would,
> > > > except to those who y'now, need to find a reason to bitch and whine
> > > > this second for any reason NOW.
> > >
> > > This coming from the guy who whined like a little girl when the
> Spider-Man
> > > writer decided Wolverine could recover from a 100-story fall,
> >
> > That would require invulnerablity.
> >
> > but said
> > > nothing when Wolverine needed a couple of seconds to recover from his
> throat
> > > being slashed wide open.
> >
> > That would require a healing factor.
>
> You know, Bendis had Wolverine surviving a fall from the helicarrier in
> House of M.
As I'm well aware. Wasn't any more realistic there.
What people really can't seem to grasp is I never said it was bad
writing to begin with. (Go ahead, check my posts. Never said it.)
What I said was it wasn't realistic.
But do continue with the straw men.
Nathan P. Mahney
>
> Shawn H wrote:
> > scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > : So how many people feel stupid about complaining about the Avengers
> > : money thing... when they just explained how Tony could afford Stark
> > : Tower? It was obvious from the start that Bendis eventually would,
> > : except to those who y'now, need to find a reason to bitch and whine
> > : this second for any reason NOW.
> >
> > Yeah, it's almost like comics come out in seperate issues that should
make
> > sense on their own.
>
> They always made sense to anyone with the half brain
> to realise that
> Iron-man's motivations were not revealed, but I know
> you come from the
> old school of bad comic writing, so can't understand it > unless you have
> thought bubbles over Captain America's head saying "I > don't understand
> Iron-man's motivations!!!!???" Like your hero
> Claremont does.
There are ways to do these kinds of subplots and make them seem like actual
subplots. Bendis has a style that, for me, isn't really conducive to serial
fiction. His subplots especially rarely feel like subplots - they feel like
he's forgetting his own stuff, or changing his mind, or ignoring it.
Usually they make sense in the end, but they frustrate me until they're
resolved, and judging by comments on line they have the same effect on a lot
of people. All we needed was Cap to voice his concerns or doubts to someone
and the subplot is ticking.
> > And what explanation? That the Sentry willed it to be? That's called
deus
> > ex machina,
>
> No it isn't. That's another word you don't understand. > Deux Ex
> Machina refers to a story being resolved by pulling
> something out of
> nowhere. Sentry tower being there, and invisible, was > previous
> continuity. It's good writing.
Debatable. The Sentry's tower DID come out of nowhere for a goodly number
of people.
David Meadows
news:43364551$0$24174$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127582381.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > continuity. It's good writing.
>
> Debatable. The Sentry's tower DID come out of nowhere for a goodly number
> of people.
It came out of nowhere for me. What was the previous continuity that
showed/foreshadowed it. Have I forgotten something from an earlier issue or
was it from a different title?
--
David Meadows
"Dear Grandfather, I know I haven't written for a while but
it's difficult when we are being chased by alien werewolf
soldiers." -- Chi-Yun, Heroes #27
http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts
Nathan P. Mahney
Fine - but your arguments against Wolverine surviving did come across as
criticism. I wanted to see if you'd apply the same criticism to Bendis,
because you do have a tendency to place him above such things. A tendency
you've upheld, I see.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:43364b7d$0$16308$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> "Nathan P. Mahney" <nma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43364551$0$24174$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >
> > "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1127582381.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > nowhere. Sentry tower being there, and invisible, was > previous
> > > continuity. It's good writing.
> >
> > Debatable. The Sentry's tower DID come out of nowhere for a goodly
number
> > of people.
>
> It came out of nowhere for me. What was the previous continuity that
> showed/foreshadowed it. Have I forgotten something from an earlier issue
or
> was it from a different title?
It was from the Sentry miniseries, which was a good five years ago. The
character had been reestablished in earlier issues of New Avengers, but the
tower, and the rest of his backstory, had not. I would say that most people
reading New Avengers didn't read The Sentry.
scott34494
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> Debatable. The Sentry's tower DID come out of nowhere for a goodly number
> of people.
It's not deux ex machina under any definition. In Deux Ex Machina, the
climax of the story is resolved by the sudden appearence of a unknown
variable. The Sentry story was not solved by the appearence of the
tower.
Nobodies mentioned the end of the issue where Iron-man holds back facts
from non Avengers heroes. I wonder what his motivation is. It was the
most interesting part of issue 10.
Nathan P. Mahney
>
> Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
>
> > Debatable. The Sentry's tower DID come out of nowhere for a goodly
number
> > of people.
>
> It's not deux ex machina under any definition. In Deux Ex Machina, the
> climax of the story is resolved by the sudden appearence of a unknown
> variable. The Sentry story was not solved by the appearence of the
> tower.
Fair enough then (I'm still waiting upon my flatmate to buy New Avengers
#10, a pox on him). If the tower were coming out of nowhere (bar the Sentry
mini) to solve a major plot point,that would be bad writing. If it's just a
minor point, it can probably slide.
David Meadows
If he thought he was holding anything back, he's dumber than he looks.
Charles Xavier was in the room.
bar...@shentel.net
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127516685.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> > > "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1127513701.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > So how many people feel stupid about complaining about the Avengers
> > > > money thing... when they just explained how Tony could afford Stark
> > > > Tower? It was obvious from the start that Bendis eventually would,
> > > > except to those who y'now, need to find a reason to bitch and whine
> > > > this second for any reason NOW.
> > >
> > > This coming from the guy who whined like a little girl when the
> Spider-Man
> > > writer decided Wolverine could recover from a 100-story fall,
> >
> > That would require invulnerablity.
> >
> > but said
> > > nothing when Wolverine needed a couple of seconds to recover from his
> throat
> > > being slashed wide open.
> >
> > That would require a healing factor.
>
> You know, Bendis had Wolverine surviving a fall from the helicarrier in
> House of M. Healing factor, invulnerability, or sycophancy?
>
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
I think Wolverine's adamantium bones pretty much guarentee his healing
factor can deal with anything. Because then all he has to deal with is
soft tissue injury.
JLB
Nathan P. Mahney
news:1127651612.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I don't really object to it on a realism level - if the writers say his
healing factor can handle that level of punishment, then it can. It's just
that Wolverine was far more compelling to read about when his healing factor
was less powerful. In the 80s it feels like a fall from that height would
have killed Wolverine. What can kill him now? A precipitious drop in sales
seems about the only possibility.
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
THE MAHNEY PIT -- http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney
NERDBLOG -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/nathanpmahney
Robert Wiacek
>
> Nobodies mentioned the end of the issue where Iron-man holds back facts
> from non Avengers heroes. I wonder what his motivation is. It was the
> most interesting part of issue 10.
>
And no Xavier...
And Namor telling someone else not to be arrogant....
Rob
Robert Wiacek
> If he thought he was holding anything back, he's dumber than he looks.
> Charles Xavier was in the room.
Look again.
Rob
scott34494
I know. I'm surprised Iron-man didn't laugh at him. Must be the
business necessary poker face.
scott34494
Robert Wiacek wrote:
> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127634835....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Nobodies mentioned the end of the issue where Iron-man holds back facts
> > from non Avengers heroes. I wonder what his motivation is. It was the
> > most interesting part of issue 10.
> >
>
> And no Xavier...
Iron-man uses anti-mind control technology, so it might be able to
block Xavier even if he was in the room. It would kind of suck for
Tony if a telepath came by and stole all his technological secrets.
It's pretty much a precaution he'd have to take.
Robert Wiacek
Yes, there's anti-mind control technology, but it has to be in the form of a
helmet. A cliché, but them are the rules.
Plus, Xavier has access to Sh'iar technology. As impressive as Tony's tech
might be, it just doesn't compare ;-)
Rob
scott34494
Robert Wiacek wrote:
> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127667453.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Robert Wiacek wrote:
> >> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1127634835....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Nobodies mentioned the end of the issue where Iron-man holds back facts
> >> > from non Avengers heroes. I wonder what his motivation is. It was the
> >> > most interesting part of issue 10.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And no Xavier...
> >
> >
> > Iron-man uses anti-mind control technology, so it might be able to
> > block Xavier even if he was in the room. It would kind of suck for
> > Tony if a telepath came by and stole all his technological secrets.
> > It's pretty much a precaution he'd have to take.
> >
>
> Yes, there's anti-mind control technology, but it has to be in the form of a
> helmet. A cliché, but them are the rules.
Nope. Iron-man has anti-mind control technology in the form of his
watch. He always wears it. Busiek added that after the Kang story
where they "revealed" Iron-man was under mind control for something
like his entire career. King of an "oh yeah?" compensation thing.
David Meadows
news:CwzZe.9521$P7....@fe06.lga...
Damn... I know my memory's bad, but I only read the thing two days ago :-(
--
David Meadows
"Deep Purple is a higher form of life for us, it is genius,
it is inspiration. This is like having Lenin alive again."
Alexei Kuznetsov, Russia.
Robert Wiacek
>Nope. Iron-man has anti-mind control technology in the form of his
>watch. He always wears it. Busiek added that after the Kang story
>where they "revealed" Iron-man was under mind control for something
>like his entire career. King of an "oh yeah?" compensation thing.
Learn something new everyday.
Rob
Steven R. Stahl
The astral plane is mystical; Xavier is, presumably, causing people to
think they're seeing him when physically, there's nothing there.
The fundamental problem with the handling of telepathy in NA #10 is
that Bendis and McNiven are trying to visually depict abstractions.
Telepathy is handled easily in prose: The telepathic dialogue is
italicized; if someone is ordered to do something, the action is
described by narration. The rendering of physically normal versions of
Emma Frost and Lindy in the telepathy sequence was about as far removed
from what was appropriate as one can imagine, and resulted in such
absurdities as Frost gripping Lindy and telling her to "concentrate"
when they're obviously not *physically* present in Reynolds's
brain--and Frost's telling some part of Lindy's mind, impossibly
removed from her brain, to concentrate???
The story is a prime example of why writers shouldn't attempt to
visualize abstractions. Even if a reader can ignore the misuse of the
word "subconscious" and decide, well, Bendis was trying to show a
telepath in action and royally fucked up the details, the conceptual
errors still wreck the story.
BTW, since Frost has been depicted as a broadcast telepath in HOUSE OF
M, the question arises as to how strong she is. Can she order people to
die? Can she render people comatose? SF readers might recall that in
Larry Niven's "Known Space" series, he had telepathic aliens known as
"Slavers" kill all the sentient races in the galaxy by broadcasting
commands to die. If Frost's abilities haven't been well defined, it's
an open question as to how many people she can incapacitate at once.
Having a telepath take action unopposed leads to plot holes.
SRS
David Meadows
>
> The story is a prime example of why writers shouldn't attempt to
> visualize abstractions. Even if a reader can ignore the misuse of the
> word "subconscious" and decide, well, Bendis was trying to show a
> telepath in action and royally fucked up the details, the conceptual
> errors still wreck the story.
You're objecting to a technique that's been successfully used in visual
media for decades. Just off the top of my head, I can name Willow in Buffy's
comatose mind in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (where Buffy somehow had a real
physical body inside her own mind -- how the heck does that work?), the
entire Matrix movie (where they use real physical people to depict abstract
bytes of computer code -- ask any software engineer if that's what your CPU
looks like), Professor X wearing armour when he's projecting his thoughts
(why not just show Xavier sitting in his chair and *thinking*, "your attack
can't hurt me"?), and let's throw in Psylock's psychic knife (which was
apparently a visible weapon in her hand even though it was actually a mental
force from her mind... yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense).
In a visual medium, you HAVE to use abstractions for things you can't see,
because... you know... if the reader can't see them then it makes the
"visual medium" part of it kind of nonsensical.
New Avengers #10 was indeed a tedious and annoying story, but there's plenty
of real faults to attack Bendis on instead of picking him up on using a
valid and established visual storytelling technique also used by dozens of
other [better] writers.
scott34494
Steven R. Stahl wrote:
>
> The astral plane is mystical; Xavier is, presumably, causing people to
> think they're seeing him when physically, there's nothing there.
>
> The fundamental problem with the handling of telepathy in NA #10 is
> that Bendis and McNiven are trying to visually depict abstractions.
The sad thing is, Bendis's telepathy scene wasn't even vaguely
abstract, but was still too abstract for your mind to handle!
>
> The story is a prime example of why writers shouldn't attempt to
> visualize abstractions.
>From a Grant Morrison interview. He might as well have been talking
about SRS and Shawn H.:
AN: Your use of Metaphor has confounded numerous "Joe Six-pack" readers
and thrilled many critics. Is metaphor the domain of higher levels of
thought? If so, does that thereby threaten to alienate those readers
who are unable to think upon those planes?
GM: I hope so! God help me, I don't want to be responsible for a small
but noisy group of morons busting neurons they can't afford to lose.
I'd much rather alienate them than waste time and energy trying to
entertain the poor bastards. There are plenty of other people available
to do that kind of work. If someone doesn't like or understand what I'm
up to, they should just buy someone else's comics. There are loads of
great books out there to appeal to every IQ level.
Mike Cotton from Wizard and I were talking at the start of the year and
Mike fronted the question, 'Is Grant Morrison too smart for comics?' I
was quite surprised. I've been employed as a comic writer for nigh on a
hundred years now and my bibliography of successful titles shows no
sign of coming to an end, but people always seem to be very concerned
that I don't have an audience or that it's dwindling. All I can say is,
there may just be some readers who are TOO DUMB for comics but they're
not a part of my audience.
So Joe Six-Pack? He can f*** off for a start. I don't know anyone who
fits that description. I like to write comics for the sort of people I
wouldn't mind having a conversation with. Simple as that.
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.
scott34494
David Meadows wrote:
> "Steven R. Stahl" <syns...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127678890.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The story is a prime example of why writers shouldn't attempt to
> > visualize abstractions. Even if a reader can ignore the misuse of the
> > word "subconscious" and decide, well, Bendis was trying to show a
> > telepath in action and royally fucked up the details, the conceptual
> > errors still wreck the story.
>
> You're objecting to a technique that's been successfully used in visual
> media for decades.
Even Stan Lee and Steve Ditko used abstraction from time to time, like
when you see half of Spider-man's mask on his face when he isn't really
wearing it, or when you see the waves over Spider-man's face to
indicate Spider-sense (they aren't really there, folks!)
I bet Stan wrote telepathic projection scenes for Xavier as well
(haven't read Essential X-men)
SRS wants to reduce comics to HIS LEVEL, the level of a Dick and Jane
book.
bar...@shentel.net
Uh, I think you need to stop reading comic books. Everything you're
complaining about is accepted in the medium.
>
> BTW, since Frost has been depicted as a broadcast telepath in HOUSE OF
> M, the question arises as to how strong she is. Can she order people to
> die? Can she render people comatose? SF readers might recall that in
> Larry Niven's "Known Space" series, he had telepathic aliens known as
> "Slavers" kill all the sentient races in the galaxy by broadcasting
> commands to die. If Frost's abilities haven't been well defined, it's
> an open question as to how many people she can incapacitate at once.
> Having a telepath take action unopposed leads to plot holes.
>
> SRS
I don't think she can just say die and a person will die. She can go
into a person's unconscious mind and shut down the past that keeps your
heart beating etc. Emma's telepathy's pretty well defined. Currently
I'd call her the second most powerful telepath in the MU, after Xavier.
When Jean's alive she likely slides down to third, and was fourth when
Nate Grey was alive. I'd say he bumped Charles and Jean down a notch.
And I figure her just above Rachel and Psylocke.
JLB
bar...@shentel.net
Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> bar...@shentel.net wrote:
> > Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> > > I read NEW AVENGERS #10 Friday afternoon. Bendis's writing on the
> > > series has been so terrible in so many different ways that direct
> > > issue-to-issue comparisons are difficult. In this issue, the handling
> > > of telepathy is a mess. "Subconscious" doesn't mean what Bendis
> > > wants it to mean (see
> > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subconscious ). Emma Frost
> > > can't yank Lindy's spirit out of her body; that requires magic. She
> > > can't convert Lindy's body to psionic energy and bring the energy
> > > into Reynolds's brain; that's beyond her power. Bendis wants nice
> > > pictures in the story, though, so the story depicts what appears to be
> > > Lindy's spirit leaving her body, but that's not the case. Her mind
> > > (subconscious??!) physically left the body instead, even though the
> > > mind can't function outside of the brain; the brain is where all
> > > those wonderful memories are stored.
> >
> > Lindy collapsed. I saw nothing that ever suggested her body was
> > converted to psionic energy. Have you ever read old X-men stories
> > where Charles Xavier goes onto the astral plane? He's got this blue
> > genderless body that can fly around anywhere?
>
> The astral plane is mystical; Xavier is, presumably, causing people to
> think they're seeing him when physically, there's nothing there.
>
mystical otherwise telepaths would have to be magic users to access it.
The blue body I talked about is generally not there to most people,
and is in fact drawn when he's doing it alone. It's a visual
representation to fans showing us that Chuck ain't home, right now.
He's left his body and is doing something somewhere else.
JLB
scott34494
barn...@shentel.net wrote:
>
> I don't think she can just say die and a person will die. She can go
> into a person's unconscious mind and shut down the past that keeps your
> heart beating etc. Emma's telepathy's pretty well defined. Currently
> I'd call her the second most powerful telepath in the MU, after Xavier.
> When Jean's alive she likely slides down to third, and was fourth when
> Nate Grey was alive. I'd say he bumped Charles and Jean down a notch.
>
Nobodies more powerful than Jean when she's in Phoenix mode.
Donnacha DeLong
early books, he could bleedin' leave his body and walk around like a ghost!
It's a bit more complex from Claremont onwards, but any battle with the
Shadow King normally features large amounts of time on the psychic plane,
where Xavier has "psychic armour". Sheesh, Grant Morrison had Cyclops and
the White Queen having psychic sex! Visual abstractions of psychic powers
have been standard Marvel fare since Prof. X was introduced.
D.
Shawn H
: commands to die. If Frost's abilities haven't been well defined, it's
: an open question as to how many people she can incapacitate at once.
: Having a telepath take action unopposed leads to plot holes.
Bendis writes her as amazingly powerful. They only thing she can't do is
be courteous, so far.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: New Avengers #10 was indeed a tedious and annoying story, but there's plenty
: of real faults to attack Bendis on instead of picking him up on using a
: valid and established visual storytelling technique also used by dozens of
: other [better] writers.
The fault lies in the strange words he chose to put with the visuals,
which seemed to be explaining what was going on but only confused things
further.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: I bet Stan wrote telepathic projection scenes for Xavier as well
: (haven't read Essential X-men)
IIRC, he was depicted as all outlines, not colored in; a kind of wraith,
but not with the dotted lines of the Invisble Girl.
: SRS wants to reduce comics to HIS LEVEL, the level of a Dick and Jane
: book.
Because everyone who disagrees with you is obviously just stupid. Immature
attitude, not an argument.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: where Xavier has "psychic armour". Sheesh, Grant Morrison had Cyclops and
: the White Queen having psychic sex! Visual abstractions of psychic powers
: have been standard Marvel fare since Prof. X was introduced.
But are they identified as "I'm taking your subconscious into his head?"
While the physical body faints dead?
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: thought bubbles over Captain America's head saying "I don't understand
: Iron-man's motivations!!!!???" Like your hero Claremont does.
My "hero Claremont?" Hah hah!
: > And what explanation? That the Sentry willed it to be? That's called deus
: > ex machina,
: No it isn't. That's another word you don't understand. Deux Ex
: Machina refers to a story being resolved by pulling something out of
: nowhere. Sentry tower being there, and invisible, was previous
: continuity. It's good writing.
It wasn't previous continuity in this title, nor anywhere foreshadowed.
The entirety of the Sentry conversion to Avenger has been bad, boring
writing, a tedious non-event. So far, Bendis has delivered maybe 2 good
issues of something that resembles Avengers under the NA title; the rest
has been uneven at best.
Shawn H.
bar...@shentel.net
That's in character, unless she really, really respects the person
she's dealing with or needs soemthing from them and isn't in a
situation where that person is doing something stupid.
JLB
bar...@shentel.net
I've never actually seen it done to a standing person. Usually they're
sitting and prepared for it, but they are shown as catatonic. Though I
believe that doing something to the person's body can jerk them back.
I personally found her dropping to be believable. In addition, her
just stopping mid pace, freezing with wide eyes and totally
unresponsive would've been believable. See, this isn't something you
can experience in real life. So no one has the experience to declare
this isn't the way it would happen.
JLB
Shawn H
: Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
: > Debatable. The Sentry's tower DID come out of nowhere for a goodly number
: > of people.
: It's not deux ex machina under any definition. In Deux Ex Machina, the
: climax of the story is resolved by the sudden appearence of a unknown
: variable. The Sentry story was not solved by the appearence of the
: tower.
You yourself came up with the story it resolved; why and how the unlikely
skyscraper was built there and then by the poor and over-extended
post-Chaos story. Stop trying to smudge the semantics of your own
assertions. I guess continuity only matters when it supports your
pro-Bendis stance.
Shawn H.
bar...@shentel.net
THe Marvel Universe is a universe. Connected. Your statement would be
like saying because Photon hasn't become Pulsar in NA they should refer
to her as Photon. Or like saying that in the real world something has
to be reported on MSNBC and CNN and the Fox News Channel for it to be
acknowledged.
In the Sentry mini-series the Watchtower was revelaed. It was also
showed that the supercomputer, Cloc has set off a hypnotic command that
kept people noticing anything related to the Sentry. There was an old
toybox in a room full of action figures, a poster on a wall, issues of
the Daily Bugle's magazine the Clarion, anything related to the Sentry
simply went unnoticed by people as though it didn't exist.
JLB
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
>
> : > Debatable. The Sentry's tower DID come out of nowhere for a goodly number
> : > of people.
>
> : It's not deux ex machina under any definition. In Deux Ex Machina, the
> : climax of the story is resolved by the sudden appearence of a unknown
> : variable. The Sentry story was not solved by the appearence of the
> : tower.
>
> You yourself came up with the story it resolved
That's not a story, dum dum, that's a plot element.
By your typical inability to apply a definition, EVERYTHING is deux ex
machina. The spider that grants Peter's powers, the fairy godmother in
cinderella, the genie in Aladdin, the ghost in Hamlet, none of them are
introduced until they turn up (one wonders how Idiot Hill expects
something to be introduced before its introduced in the first place?
Does Idiot Hill expect Aladdin to discover the genie and only realise
he's poor or that wishes are neat a few weeks later to avoid Hill's
deux ex machina mislabel? ), and they're all useful to the characters
as soon or shortly after as they are introduced.
I suppose in idiot Hill's version of Peter's origin, we start with a
shot of the Spider. It falls into the laboratory, then a thought
bubble appears over its head "Oh no! Radioactivity! I hope I don't
give someone supepowers and die afterwards!"
Cut to Peter watching the science lab. He sees the Spider "It's
radioactive. I wonder if, by some freakish accident it'll give me
superpowers! Golly!"
I suppose it would be Deux ex Machina for Bilbo to find a magic ring in
the Hobbit! We better add a footnote ealier in the story. "This has
nothing to do with anything right now but Bilbo's gonna find a magic
ring later on. K? Shawn Hill's a bitch and I don't him calling the
ring Deux Ex Machina so I'm introducing it now." After all, a magic
ring introduced before the character finds it would incur professor
hill's wrath.
Thanks for another misinformed-lesson about the meaning of words,
"professor".
And least we forget Grant Morrison, who might as well be blasting SRS
and Shawn, says:
"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"
Don't bust a brain cell Shawn. Surely there's some Chris Claremont
mind control porn you'd rather be reading?
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
>
> Because everyone who disagrees with you is obviously just stupid. Immature
> attitude, not an argument.
Not what I said, Mr. Straw Man. I never said anyone who disagrees with
me about anything is stupid. (But your hypocricy is once again noted,
Mr. "I insult and mislabel people in one post and claim I'm above such
things in the next.")
Anyone who wants to remove all "abstraction" from art or comics IS
obviously stupid. Comics inherentently contain an element of
abstraction by the very fact that they are not reality. "Ceci n'est
pas une pipe".
And Dick and Jane was not recommended for SRS because he's an idiot
(though he is) It was recommended because "See Dick run. Run Dick
run" is the level of fiction with the least amount of abstraction
imaginable, and comics, that have always, say, depicted telepathy
*gasp* THROUGH ART, will always disappoint him ,though he continually
acts surprised, as if Bendis is inventing abstraction in art for the
first time just to mess with him. Why is that?
scott34494
Notices how little Shawn understands the character? He keeps deperatly
trying to pin character flaws created by Claremont, Morrison, et all on
Bendis, because EMMA FROST IS A WOMAN AND THUS SHOULD BE TREATED AS A
FLAWLESS GODDESS AND NEVER RUDE!!!!
Robert Wiacek
"Steven R. Stahl" <syns...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1127678890.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The astral plane is mystical; Xavier is, presumably, causing people to
> think they're seeing him when physically, there's nothing there.
Not in the Marvel Universe, something which you obviously don't get.
Telepaths enter the astral plane all the time and for you to start quibbling
about it seems pretty petty now when Bendis uses it.
> The fundamental problem with the handling of telepathy in NA #10 is
> that Bendis and McNiven are trying to visually depict abstractions.
> Telepathy is handled easily in prose: The telepathic dialogue is
> italicized; if someone is ordered to do something, the action is
> described by narration. The rendering of physically normal versions of
> Emma Frost and Lindy in the telepathy sequence was about as far removed
> from what was appropriate as one can imagine, and resulted in such
> absurdities as Frost gripping Lindy and telling her to "concentrate"
> when they're obviously not *physically* present in Reynolds's
> brain--and Frost's telling some part of Lindy's mind, impossibly
> removed from her brain, to concentrate???
This is not a new literary device for telepathy and stop acting like it is.
Similar uses of telepathy have been used in the X-titles for years. Again,
Bendis is not breaking new ground and is simply falling Marvel continuity in
how telepathy works there.
> The story is a prime example of why writers shouldn't attempt to
> visualize abstractions. Even if a reader can ignore the misuse of the
> word "subconscious" and decide, well, Bendis was trying to show a
> telepath in action and royally fucked up the details, the conceptual
> errors still wreck the story.
Most readers figure out quite early that words like "subconscious,"
"mutant," etc., are all used differently in comics, scifi and fantasy
stories.
> BTW, since Frost has been depicted as a broadcast telepath in HOUSE OF
> M, the question arises as to how strong she is. Can she order people to
> die? Can she render people comatose? SF readers might recall that in
> Larry Niven's "Known Space" series, he had telepathic aliens known as
> "Slavers" kill all the sentient races in the galaxy by broadcasting
> commands to die. If Frost's abilities haven't been well defined, it's
> an open question as to how many people she can incapacitate at once.
> Having a telepath take action unopposed leads to plot holes.
There you go again, mixing genres. What can be done in Niven's books does
not mean the same can be done in the Marvel Universe.
Rob
Robert Wiacek
"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dh7esd$2a0$4...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
You liked Morrison's run on the X-men, correct? How did you like that "'nuff
said" issue where Jean Grey and Emma Frost enter Xavier's mind. Plenty of
abstraction there.
Rob
Shawn H
Shawn H
: Anyone who wants to remove all "abstraction" from art or comics IS
: obviously stupid. Comics inherentently contain an element of
: abstraction by the very fact that they are not reality. "Ceci n'est
: pas une pipe".
Anyone who wants to do ALL of ANYTHING is stupid, but that's how you have
to paint them to set up your straw man responses.
: And Dick and Jane was not recommended for SRS because he's an idiot
: (though he is) It was recommended because "See Dick run. Run Dick
: run" is the level of fiction with the least amount of abstraction
: imaginable, and comics, that have always, say, depicted telepathy
: *gasp* THROUGH ART, will always disappoint him ,though he continually
: acts surprised, as if Bendis is inventing abstraction in art for the
: first time just to mess with him. Why is that?
Because Bendis is trying to do it, failing, and yet still being praised
for it.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
I like abstract art, period. I was able to make the leaps required to get
where Bendis was going with his story involving Robert's wife. But that's
only because I followed the goals of the plot while ignoring what was
lacking in execution. I thought the entire sequence was awkward and
muddled, that Emma Frost is his latest all-powerful Mary Sue (who doesn't
even sound like herself:
"I used my mutant psychic abilities to -- "
"Oh, it be true."
"Ma'am, all due respect, if it was that simple...fine. But it's not."
"Looks like."
Who is she, Luke Cage? Or, more accurately, who isn't in a Bendis book
these days?),
and that the things she was shown as doing to both Robert and Lindy would
once have been depicted as causing grave psychic damage to her victims.
Bendis wields her powers like a blunt instrument, and yet conversely
deadens the urgency of her predicament with all the endless verbiage.
It was a crap issue with a non-conclusion anticlimax to a non-battle, made
little better by McNiven's over-praised and underwhelming art. Steve is
the voice of reason in finding fault with it.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > Bendis writes her as amazingly powerful. They only thing she can't do is
: > be courteous, so far.
: Notices how little Shawn understands the character? He keeps deperatly
: trying to pin character flaws created by Claremont, Morrison, et all on
: Bendis, because EMMA FROST IS A WOMAN AND THUS SHOULD BE TREATED AS A
: FLAWLESS GODDESS AND NEVER RUDE!!!!
Straw man, not an argument. Try instead countering with instances of
Emma's courtesy under Bendis. Even I could do it if I felt they were
significant.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
It's in character for the White Queen. It's no longer in character
post-Morrison. She's beyond just being out for number one now.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: This is not a new literary device for telepathy and stop acting like it is.
: Similar uses of telepathy have been used in the X-titles for years. Again,
: Bendis is not breaking new ground and is simply falling Marvel continuity in
: how telepathy works there.
He did it better in Alias, where Jean entered the comatose Jessica's mind
to help her heal. There the abstract, astral plane had playful and
creative symbolism to keep it interesting, and allow the reader to follow
Jessica's plight. Here we've got acres of verbal diarrhea over white
panels interspersed with over-literal flashbacks. Not interesting.
: Most readers figure out quite early that words like "subconscious,"
: "mutant," etc., are all used differently in comics, scifi and fantasy
: stories.
Now there's a special Marvel universe meaning of "subconscious?" How does
that help tell stories? Couldn't Bendis just say "psyche" if that's what
he meant?
: > commands to die. If Frost's abilities haven't been well defined, it's
: > an open question as to how many people she can incapacitate at once.
: > Having a telepath take action unopposed leads to plot holes.
: There you go again, mixing genres. What can be done in Niven's books does
: not mean the same can be done in the Marvel Universe.
Now who's being too literal?
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > : It's not deux ex machina under any definition. In Deux Ex Machina, the
: > : climax of the story is resolved by the sudden appearence of a unknown
: > : variable. The Sentry story was not solved by the appearence of the
: > : tower.
: >
: > You yourself came up with the story it resolved
: That's not a story, dum dum, that's a plot element.
Oh good grief!
[snipped multiple straw men of lengthy proportions. Such a lot of noise.
Wonder why?]
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > It wasn't previous continuity in this title, nor anywhere foreshadowed.
: > The entirety of the Sentry conversion to Avenger has been bad, boring
: > writing, a tedious non-event. So far, Bendis has delivered maybe 2 good
: > issues of something that resembles Avengers under the NA title; the rest
: > has been uneven at best.
: THe Marvel Universe is a universe. Connected. Your statement would be
: like saying because Photon hasn't become Pulsar in NA they should refer
: to her as Photon. Or like saying that in the real world something has
: to be reported on MSNBC and CNN and the Fox News Channel for it to be
: acknowledged.
My statement that I'm unimpressed with Bendis' justification of Stark
Tower by having it miraculously coincide with Sentry's magic citadel? I'm
not saying it's wrong. I'm saying it's stupid and sucks as an explanation.
I'm not correcting his facts; I'm laughing at his story.
: In the Sentry mini-series the Watchtower was revelaed. It was also
: showed that the supercomputer, Cloc has set off a hypnotic command that
: kept people noticing anything related to the Sentry. There was an old
: toybox in a room full of action figures, a poster on a wall, issues of
: the Daily Bugle's magazine the Clarion, anything related to the Sentry
: simply went unnoticed by people as though it didn't exist.
The Sentry mini-series was a quite clever meta-retcon of inserting an
Ubermensch into a Marvel Universe where he never belonged, as a kind of
mad, nostalgic, tragic and entertaining object lesson as to why he'd never
work, plus an evocation of the origins of the line. A hero that in fact
cannot exist, for the safety of everyone around.
Bendis' decision to shoe-horn him into the active continuity now defies
his very conception, and makes generic and blurred what had been finite
and distinctive.
It's not the king of bad ideas. But the resultant story hasn't been worth
it, and all the bells and whistles about comic books and super-villains
and Mastermind plots and colorful angst isn't going to cover up the huge,
debilitating lacks in this entire sequel. As a story, it's been a failure.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > It's not deux ex machina under any definition. In Deux Ex Machina, the
: > climax of the story is resolved by the sudden appearence of a unknown
: > variable. The Sentry story was not solved by the appearence of the
: > tower.
: Fair enough then (I'm still waiting upon my flatmate to buy New Avengers
: #10, a pox on him). If the tower were coming out of nowhere (bar the Sentry
: mini) to solve a major plot point,that would be bad writing. If it's just a
: minor point, it can probably slide.
How easily a forceful voice muddles the facts. The story here is "how was
Tony able to afford a new spiffy tower if he can't fix the Mansion?" It's
been a nagging plot hole since the series began. Now "it's actually been
part of the Sentry's forgotten tower all along" reads as a shoddy patch
that doesn't actually answer the question.
The Sentry story, btw, was "solved" by a similar sort of empty gesture:
the Void was never real, it was just Mastermind and the General f***ing
him over real good. Which undoes who the character actually is, because he
goes from a cursed Catch-22 situation to a typical Bendis "victim who will
one day fight back" scenario. Ho hum.
But that wasn't the point I was initially responding to. I was refuting
Scott's claim that Bendis so handily resolved the Tower situation with the
neato Sentry citadel idea. Scott's trying to squirm out of that by
recasting my assertion as something I never said. IE, a straw man he can
more easily counter.
McNiven does manage a fair aping of Jae Lee, however, in the design.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
>
> Now there's a special Marvel universe meaning of "subconscious?" How does
> that help tell stories?
It's telepathic lingo that adds depth to the dialogue by putting us
into a different context.
(You notice when Shawn has no rebuttle he sometimes falls back to
asking "pointed" questions that are absolutly meaningless?
How does making Spider-man's costume orange and blue help tell stories?
How does changing the name from Timely to Marvel help tell stories?
Why aren't onions called pears and pears called onions?)
Robert Wiacek
> It was a crap issue with a non-conclusion anticlimax to a non-battle, made
> little better by McNiven's over-praised and underwhelming art. Steve is
> the voice of reason in finding fault with it.
Except SRS is criticizing Bendis for using a literary device for telepathy
that has been main stay in Marvel books. Bendis hardly broke new ground in
NA#10, it was fairly standard stuff for Marvel.
Rob
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> Nathan P. Mahney <nma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> : > It's not deux ex machina under any definition. In Deux Ex Machina, the
> : > climax of the story is resolved by the sudden appearence of a unknown
> : > variable. The Sentry story was not solved by the appearence of the
> : > tower.
>
> : Fair enough then (I'm still waiting upon my flatmate to buy New Avengers
> : #10, a pox on him). If the tower were coming out of nowhere (bar the Sentry
> : mini) to solve a major plot point,that would be bad writing. If it's just a
> : minor point, it can probably slide.
>
> How easily a forceful voice muddles the facts. The story here is "how was
> Tony able to afford a new spiffy tower if he can't fix the Mansion?"
That's not the story.
Claiming it is is like saying the Alice in Wonderland is the story of
an egg that talks. Your asserting that the tree is the forest because
your so excited by the idea of misusing the term "deux ex machina"
which is your latest of a long series of such misuses.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Anyone who wants to remove all "abstraction" from art or comics IS
> : obviously stupid. Comics inherentently contain an element of
> : abstraction by the very fact that they are not reality. "Ceci n'est
> : pas une pipe".
>
> Anyone who wants to do ALL of ANYTHING is stupid, but that's how you have
> to paint them to set up your straw man responses.
He said "The story is a prime example of why writers shouldn't attempt
to visualize abstractions." Since a sequence of panels are an
abstraction of movement, and writers aren't allowed to visualize
abstractions, there goes comics!
Someone who can't handle abstractions, especially one as simple as two
people talking in an indistinct background, had best stick to Dick and
Jane books.
I find it hilarious, incidently, that a second ago you declared SRS to
be the "voice of reason." Good grief!
Shawn H
: I find it hilarious, incidently, that a second ago you declared SRS to
: be the "voice of reason." Good grief!
Mirroring behaviour isn't enough to rebutt an argument. I know it's one
of your two techniques (the other being straw man); both fail.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:dh7qsb$3u9$6...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
Was it as exciting as the Professor's battle with the Shadow King in
X-men #117? Was it even as well told and thematically appropriate as Jean
helping Jessica Jones deal with her traumas in Alias?
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > Now there's a special Marvel universe meaning of "subconscious?" How does
: > that help tell stories?
: It's telepathic lingo that adds depth to the dialogue by putting us
: into a different context.
"Subconscious" is no part of "telepathic lingo." It actually already has
a meaning that works just fine. If the "different context" he was going
for was confusion, that was all he achieved.
: How does making Spider-man's costume orange and blue help tell stories?
: How does changing the name from Timely to Marvel help tell stories?
: Why aren't onions called pears and pears called onions?)
Fallacy of unrelated examples. Not an argument.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > How easily a forceful voice muddles the facts. The story here is "how was
: > Tony able to afford a new spiffy tower if he can't fix the Mansion?"
: That's not the story.
Let's just quote you:
"So how many people feel stupid about complaining about the Avengers
money thing... when they just explained how Tony could afford Stark
Tower? It was obvious from the start that Bendis eventually would,
except to those who y'now, need to find a reason to bitch and whine
this second for any reason NOW."
IE, you're celebrating a continuity patch on a story that previously
made no sense. You're in fact asserting that this was his planned
resolution to that story all along.
: Claiming it is is like saying the Alice in Wonderland is the story of
: an egg that talks. Your asserting that the tree is the forest because
: your so excited by the idea of misusing the term "deux ex machina"
: which is your latest of a long series of such misuses.
I'm asserting that what happens to the Queen, the Mad Hatter, and
Tweedledee and dum matter, too in the ongoing narrative.
Shawn H.
Robert Wiacek
But those are all subjective discussion points and you know it. What SRS
does, time and time again, is criticize the story on the rules and mechanics
set by Marvel themselves. He's arguing that telepaths shouldn't go into the
astral plane, because that's that the realm of magic, despite the fact that
Marvel telepaths have gone into the astral plane for decades. Or what Emma
Frost should be able to do with her telepathy based on a Larry Niven book.
Rob
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : I find it hilarious, incidently, that a second ago you declared SRS to
> : be the "voice of reason." Good grief!
>
> Mirroring behaviour isn't enough to rebutt an argument.
Jezus Christ on a stick, I wasn't mirroring you. In the post you
replied to, I was quoting you! What the hell are you on about now? Do
you even listen to yourself?
And even if I was mirroring you, you're not the arbitrator of what does
or does not "rebutt an argument" Professor Hill.
I now return you to your fantasy life when people you aren't holding
hostage listen to and respect you.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn H wrote:
>
> : >
> : > Now there's a special Marvel universe meaning of "subconscious?" How does
> : > that help tell stories?
>
> : It's telepathic lingo that adds depth to the dialogue by putting us
> : into a different context.
>
> "Subconscious" is no part of "telepathic lingo."
What the hell are you on about? There is no such thing as telepathic
lingo, so you don't get to decide what is or isn't in a fictional
setting. Kinda sad that you can't see that.
It actually already has
> a meaning that works just fine. If the "different context" he was going
> for was confusion, that was all he achieved.
>
> : How does making Spider-man's costume orange and blue help tell stories?
> : How does changing the name from Timely to Marvel help tell stories?
> : Why aren't onions called pears and pears called onions?)
>
> Fallacy of unrelated examples.
Completly related. You asked how an example of telepathic lingo helps
tell stories, as if the only things in a story are those that are
necessary, as if a story were a math formula. It was a dumb question.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn H wrote:
> : >
> : > How easily a forceful voice muddles the facts. The story here is "how was
> : > Tony able to afford a new spiffy tower if he can't fix the Mansion?"
>
> : That's not the story.
>
> Let's just quote you:
>
> "So how many people feel stupid about complaining about the Avengers
> money thing... when they just explained how Tony could afford Stark
> Tower? It was obvious from the start that Bendis eventually would,
> except to those who y'now, need to find a reason to bitch and whine
> this second for any reason NOW."
>
> IE, you're celebrating a continuity patch on a story that previously
> made no sense. You're in fact asserting that this was his planned
> resolution to that story all along.
Notice that Shawn is attempting to imply that Bendis did not have it
planned all along, but doesn't actually say it directly, since he must
know, on some level, that saying it wasn't planned is too stupid an
assertion to bear any scrutiny in the least.
Because it isn't like the Sentry tower was part of the backstory of the
character that appears in the very first issue of New Avengers. No.
There's no way it could have been planned at all!
Nathan P. Mahney
news:1127686263.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> > bar...@shentel.net wrote:
> > > Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> > > > I read NEW AVENGERS #10 Friday afternoon. Bendis's writing on the
> > > > series has been so terrible in so many different ways that direct
> > > > issue-to-issue comparisons are difficult. In this issue, the
handling
> > > > of telepathy is a mess. "Subconscious" doesn't mean what Bendis
> > > > wants it to mean (see
> > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subconscious ). Emma Frost
> > > > can't yank Lindy's spirit out of her body; that requires magic. She
> > > > can't convert Lindy's body to psionic energy and bring the energy
> > > > into Reynolds's brain; that's beyond her power. Bendis wants nice
> > > > pictures in the story, though, so the story depicts what appears to
be
> > > > Lindy's spirit leaving her body, but that's not the case. Her mind
> > > > (subconscious??!) physically left the body instead, even though the
> > > > mind can't function outside of the brain; the brain is where all
> > > > those wonderful memories are stored.
> > >
> > > Lindy collapsed. I saw nothing that ever suggested her body was
> > > converted to psionic energy. Have you ever read old X-men stories
> > > where Charles Xavier goes onto the astral plane? He's got this blue
> > > genderless body that can fly around anywhere?
> >
> > The astral plane is mystical; Xavier is, presumably, causing people to
> > think they're seeing him when physically, there's nothing there.
> >
> > that Bendis and McNiven are trying to visually depict abstractions.
> > Telepathy is handled easily in prose: The telepathic dialogue is
> > italicized; if someone is ordered to do something, the action is
> > described by narration. The rendering of physically normal versions of
> > Emma Frost and Lindy in the telepathy sequence was about as far removed
> > from what was appropriate as one can imagine, and resulted in such
> > absurdities as Frost gripping Lindy and telling her to "concentrate"
> > when they're obviously not *physically* present in Reynolds's
> > brain--and Frost's telling some part of Lindy's mind, impossibly
> > removed from her brain, to concentrate???
> >
> > word "subconscious" and decide, well, Bendis was trying to show a
> > telepath in action and royally fucked up the details, the conceptual
> > errors still wreck the story.
>
> complaining about is accepted in the medium.
> >
> > BTW, since Frost has been depicted as a broadcast telepath in HOUSE OF
> > M, the question arises as to how strong she is. Can she order people to
> > die? Can she render people comatose? SF readers might recall that in
> > Larry Niven's "Known Space" series, he had telepathic aliens known as
> > "Slavers" kill all the sentient races in the galaxy by broadcasting
> > an open question as to how many people she can incapacitate at once.
> > Having a telepath take action unopposed leads to plot holes.
> >
>
> I don't think she can just say die and a person will die. She can go
> into a person's unconscious mind and shut down the past that keeps your
> heart beating etc. Emma's telepathy's pretty well defined. Currently
> I'd call her the second most powerful telepath in the MU, after Xavier.
> When Jean's alive she likely slides down to third, and was fourth when
> Nate Grey was alive. I'd say he bumped Charles and Jean down a notch.
> And I figure her just above Rachel and Psylocke.
Psylocke doesn't have telepathy at the moment, so that's a given.
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
THE MAHNEY PIT -- http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney
NERDBLOG -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/nathanpmahney
Nathan P. Mahney
I think she still has that aspect to her, though not as strongly as before.
Certainly she's still not going to go out of her way to be polite to
everyone, regardless of her motivations - it's just not in her nature.
Nathan P. Mahney
> Nathan P. Mahney <nma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> : > It's not deux ex machina under any definition. In Deux Ex Machina,
the
> : > climax of the story is resolved by the sudden appearence of a unknown
> : > variable. The Sentry story was not solved by the appearence of the
> : > tower.
>
> : Fair enough then (I'm still waiting upon my flatmate to buy New Avengers
> : #10, a pox on him). If the tower were coming out of nowhere (bar the
Sentry
> : mini) to solve a major plot point,that would be bad writing. If it's
just a
> : minor point, it can probably slide.
>
> How easily a forceful voice muddles the facts.
I didn't really feel like arguing the point when I haven't read the issue
yet - it's not really the done thing.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:1127696873.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> > : thought bubbles over Captain America's head saying "I don't understand
> > : Iron-man's motivations!!!!???" Like your hero Claremont does.
> >
> > My "hero Claremont?" Hah hah!
> >
> > : > And what explanation? That the Sentry willed it to be? That's called
deus
> > : > ex machina,
> >
> > : No it isn't. That's another word you don't understand. Deux Ex
> > : Machina refers to a story being resolved by pulling something out of
> > : nowhere. Sentry tower being there, and invisible, was previous
> > : continuity. It's good writing.
> >
> > It wasn't previous continuity in this title, nor anywhere foreshadowed.
> > The entirety of the Sentry conversion to Avenger has been bad, boring
> > writing, a tedious non-event. So far, Bendis has delivered maybe 2 good
> > issues of something that resembles Avengers under the NA title; the rest
> > has been uneven at best.
> >
>
> THe Marvel Universe is a universe. Connected. Your statement would be
> like saying because Photon hasn't become Pulsar in NA they should refer
> to her as Photon. Or like saying that in the real world something has
> to be reported on MSNBC and CNN and the Fox News Channel for it to be
> acknowledged.
>
> showed that the supercomputer, Cloc has set off a hypnotic command that
> kept people noticing anything related to the Sentry. There was an old
> toybox in a room full of action figures, a poster on a wall, issues of
> the Daily Bugle's magazine the Clarion, anything related to the Sentry
> simply went unnoticed by people as though it didn't exist.
>
Yes, but that series was five years ago. Bendis can't just expect people to
have read it. Dusting off the tower to conclude a subplot, with no
reintroduction to the concept whatsoever, is pretty lazy.
David Johnston
>> It's in character for the White Queen. It's no longer in
>> character
>> post-Morrison. She's beyond just being out for number > one now.
There are plenty of arrogant good and semi good guys in the Marvel
Universe. I wouldn't want to see Emma have a total personality
transplant.
Steven R. Stahl
Your argument about standards amounts to "If comic books have crappy
standards, that's OK. They are crap, not SF, and complaining about them
being crap is stupid."
If Marvel consistently tries to depict telepathic communication by
misleading, confusing imagery, then they're doing a consistently lousy
job of depicting telepathy in comics. The consistency doesn't make the
misrepresentation okay, any more than, say, consistently misspelling
"brain" as "brane" would mean that in the Marvel Universe, "brane" is
an accepted spelling.
In CAPTAIN MARVEL #31, as I recall, a telepathic battle between
Moondragon and Thanos was short and sweet, with the action properly
represented as an abstraction. Bendis could have done the Lindy-Frost
sequence as a text page, or skipped the sequence entirely, and come up
with a different plot.
Telepathy is something that comics, as a visual medium, simply isn't
suited for. Unless the telepath's action quickly produces suitably
visual consequences, the plot material is best avoided.
SRS