Scarlet Witch Question: If She's So Powerful...
badth...@yahoo.com
powerful that good guys have to discuss killing her when she's out of
control because she could remake reality, why aren't her children real?
Why can't this near-omnipotent being make her own kids?
Fallen
That's more of a philosophical question really.
Are kids just created out of the ether her real children? I think most
people, including a sane Wanda, would consider not.
It's not that she cannot make 2 small children, it's that they wouldn't
really be her and the Visions kids.
Fallen.
scott34494
She's also a near omnipotent being that has no control over her powers.
Fallen
I don't think we need to go as far as 'near omnipotent'.
Reality altering powers have been encountered, and defeated, before and
nothing she's done has seen to have any effects outside of the planet or
her local sphere of influence.
People like Galactus are 'near omnipotent'.
Fallen.
MCheu
She did make her own kids. The thing about being omnipotent is that
you can remake reality any way you want. That's kind of the whole
point of being omnipotent, but it's only as real as you believe it to
be. If you've got the power to make something, you've probably also
got the power to unmake it.
To put it another way, a person can believe in the existence of God or
not. As mere mortals, we can take it or leave it and it probably
wouldn't make all that much difference in the scheme of things.
Ultimately, we just don't have enough power to change things all that
much and you'd have to have a pretty big ego to think otherwise.
However, if at any point God were to stop believing in people, pfft.
That's it. we're done. "Spontaneous, total existence failure" (Adams'
books have so many cool quotes). Game over. We end up where ever
imaginary friends and forgotten story book characters go. Does that
make us any less real? I don't know, but don't think on it too hard,
you'll end up as an insane televangelist (yeah, I know it's
redundant).
Were they real? Yeah, sort of, maybe.
---------------------------------------------
MCheu
Mike
<badth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119132781.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The point isn't that she can make kids out of thin air...the point is that
she HAD two children, thought they were real, loved them, and lost
them...making more kids isn't going to make her feel any better.
Dan McEwen
news:42B4A0A6...@ntlworld.com:
> badth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>A question that occurred to me about The Scarlet Witch. If she's so
>>powerful that good guys have to discuss killing her when she's out of
>>control because she could remake reality, why aren't her children
>>real?
>> Why can't this near-omnipotent being make her own kids?
> That's more of a philosophical question really.
>
> Are kids just created out of the ether her real children? I think most
> people, including a sane Wanda, would consider not.
I don't see why not. At the very least, Wanda's own DNA is involved.
And considering parthenogenesis is a very real possibility, I don't see
why her children couldn't have been real. Byrne just wanted to jettison
Wanda's family, and this was the easiest way for him to do it.
Fallen
Eh? How is Wanda's DNA involved if she just summons up some kids from
thin air?
Fallen.
Shawn H
: A question that occurred to me about The Scarlet Witch. If she's so
: powerful that good guys have to discuss killing her when she's out of
: control because she could remake reality, why aren't her children real?
: Why can't this near-omnipotent being make her own kids?
Thank you! I've only been asking this since last November.
Bendis is having it both ways: she's so powerful she can do anything, but
since which she does is construed as "abuse," it's also somehow not real.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: badth...@yahoo.com wrote:
Don't abandon the philosophy. If life is just cells meeting and
multiplying, why can't she use magic to make that happen?
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: <badth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
There seem to be a lot of points. If her power effects all reality, then
why doesn't it really work?
Shawn H.
scott34494
Cause she's insane?
It's pretty clear that the children are just extentions of her own
mind, just externalizations of her subconscous thoughts.
Brian C. Saunders
She's powerful enough to kill people that stay dead in reality. She's
not powerful enough to create life. That's the abuse part. She's
using her powers to feed a narcisstic need for a maternal
relationship. The constructs she creates are just projections os her
own self and not sentient beings. She's not really interested in what
really consitutes a parental bond: the nurturing and sustaining of
another human being to the point of independance. She's not a real
mother and never was.
Brian
kennet...@sbcglobal.net
BTW, didn't Scarlet Witch went coo-coo in West Coast Avengers when Byrne was
drawing the book? How was that storyline resolved?
<badth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119132781.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tony
--for all that I despised Disassembled, if we take it's "logic", we
know that Wanda only recently regained her memories of her children.
I'm guessing recovering those lost memories in conjunction with all the
turmoil in her life over the years, as well as her uncontrollable power
(this is all Bendis btw, I don't agree with any of it; I'm just tossing
out theories on how his crap might work) is what sent her over the
edge. Since she's insane, her hold on her powers isn't enough to
permanently keep her children real. They were "real" in Avengers 503,
but when she was defeated, they went away. Likewise in HOM 1, we saw
the kids, but in both cases, her illusion was shattered. Her chaotic
subconscious hasn't yet (after regaining her memories) had the chance
to recreate her children w/out interruptions. If the Avengers and
Dr. Strange hadn't intervened in Avengers 503, I imagine she'd be
living happily in some pseudo la-la land with her kids and the Vision.
Likewise if Professor X hadn't forcibly put her to sleep in HOM 1.
So it's not so much a question of why can't she make them real. I
imagine given the ridiculous amount of power retconned to her that she
could. She just keeps getting interrupted each time she does so and
with her sanity fractured, she doesn't have the mental well being to
make them permanently real (if she can even *do* that; for all we know
there's a time limit on her constructs).
Tony
Dan McEwen
> Dan McEwen wrote:
>
>>I don't see why not. At the very least, Wanda's own DNA is involved.
>>And considering parthenogenesis is a very real possibility, I don't
>>see why her children couldn't have been real. Byrne just wanted to
>>jettison Wanda's family, and this was the easiest way for him to do
>>it.
> Eh? How is Wanda's DNA involved if she just summons up some kids from
> thin air?
She went through and entire pregnancy and gave birth to them. It
doesn't sound much like them being summoned up from thin air to me. I
was speaking about the original twins, not a potential new set. I
also realize that parthenogenesis would only allow for female children,
but I figure her powers could take care of those details.
Fallen
We have no idea any more what she did to get the original kids. Did she
actually give birth? Did she just convince those around her she did
etc.? Did she just magic up a foetus and therefore it still doesn't
contain her DNA? Who knows any more.
However the question at hand was concerning new children created now.
Fallen.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > There seem to be a lot of points. If her power effects all reality, then
: > why doesn't it really work?
: Cause she's insane?
: It's pretty clear that the children are just extentions of her own
: mind, just externalizations of her subconscous thoughts.
Is it? But isn't her power that whatever she thinks actually happens? So
why isn't it really real? If it's real, what then is an "externalization"
that's not? Which came first? The insanity, or the power? Haven't you been
convince that her power drove her insane?
Didn't it do that by working?
So why doesn't it work anymore?
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: >>A question that occurred to me about The Scarlet Witch. If she's so
: powerful that good guys have to discuss killing her when she's out of
: control because she could remake reality, why aren't her children real?
: Why can't this near-omnipotent being make her own kids?<<
: --for all that I despised Disassembled, if we take it's "logic", we
: know that Wanda only recently regained her memories of her children.
: I'm guessing recovering those lost memories in conjunction with all the
: turmoil in her life over the years, as well as her uncontrollable power
: (this is all Bendis btw, I don't agree with any of it; I'm just tossing
: out theories on how his crap might work) is what sent her over the
: edge. Since she's insane, her hold on her powers isn't enough to
: permanently keep her children real. They were "real" in Avengers 503,
See how horribly circular that is, though? She's strong enough to make
anything she wants. Making anything she wants makes her lose touch with
what is/was/should (emphasis on SHOULD, ie, natural) be. So now she's lost
so much touch she doesn't know what she's making, and it's not as real as
it was, whatever it was.
Why does that make her more of a threat now, if her powers have actually
damaged her to the point where they're less effective than before, where
she can't execute a full spell consciously?
: but when she was defeated, they went away. Likewise in HOM 1, we saw
: the kids, but in both cases, her illusion was shattered. Her chaotic
: subconscious hasn't yet (after regaining her memories) had the chance
: to recreate her children w/out interruptions. If the Avengers and
IE, without Charles, Erik and Stephen exerting control over her mind.
: Dr. Strange hadn't intervened in Avengers 503, I imagine she'd be
: living happily in some pseudo la-la land with her kids and the Vision.
Don't forget her agenda, whether conscious or not, to wreack havoc and
mayhem in the most painful way possible to her perceived enemeies. If her
goal really were her children, why not just make them and take a leave from
the Avengers to go be with them.
If she really wanted to be back with the Vision, why not make him do as she
wishes rather than kill him and recreate a semblance of him AND Simon at
her table?
: Likewise if Professor X hadn't forcibly put her to sleep in HOM 1.
: So it's not so much a question of why can't she make them real. I
: imagine given the ridiculous amount of power retconned to her that she
: could. She just keeps getting interrupted each time she does so and
: with her sanity fractured, she doesn't have the mental well being to
: make them permanently real (if she can even *do* that; for all we know
: there's a time limit on her constructs).
For all we know, she's perfectly sane, under the influence of other forces,
and actually being damaged by Charles and Stephen rather than helped.
This not knowing thing is a HUGE problem with a story that's gone on for
this many issues/months already. Bendis seems to think his readers have
infinite patience. That may apply in Daredevil, where each individual
issue offers its own reward, but it hardly applies to House of M or several
of his other current mediocre projects.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> Why does that make her more of a threat now, if her powers have actually
> damaged her to the point where they're less effective than before, where
> she can't execute a full spell consciously?
Um, you should have answered your own question.
She's a threat BECAUSE her powers are not executed conscously.
It's about discipline. Dr. Strange is a paragon of discipline, Wanda,
unconscously doing anything and everything, is not.
>
> : but when she was defeated, they went away. Likewise in HOM 1, we saw
> : the kids, but in both cases, her illusion was shattered. Her chaotic
> : subconscious hasn't yet (after regaining her memories) had the chance
> : to recreate her children w/out interruptions. If the Avengers and
>
> IE, without Charles, Erik and Stephen exerting control over her mind.
>
> : Dr. Strange hadn't intervened in Avengers 503, I imagine she'd be
> : living happily in some pseudo la-la land with her kids and the Vision.
>
> Don't forget her agenda, whether conscious or not, to wreack havoc and
> mayhem in the most painful way possible to her perceived enemeies.
Bendis brings up the fact that all she knows is violence. Violence in
the Master of Evil, violence in the Avengers. She's never had a stable
environment.
>If she really wanted to be back with the Vision, why not make him do as she
>wishes rather than kill him and recreate a semblance of him AND Simon at
>her table?
Because she's narcissistic. Look it up. You don't seem to comprehend
mental illness that doesn't involve demonic posession.
Tony
the Master of Evil, violence in the Avengers. She's never had a stable
environment. <<
--that would be Bendis playing fast and loose with continuity as he's
done with Wanda's past since he tackled the Avengers. She's had
violence in her life, yes, but no moreso than other heroes AND she's
also had some stability and happiness in her life as well. Bendis'
take on the Scarlet Witch is the first time I've seen someone write her
as "poor Wanda, she couldn't handle all the stress in her life. I feel
so sorry for her." I prefer the capable, confidant, and "fully over her
children and marriage" Wanda.
Tony
Shawn H
: > Don't forget her agenda, whether conscious or not, to wreack havoc and
: > mayhem in the most painful way possible to her perceived enemeies.
: Bendis brings up the fact that all she knows is violence. Violence in
: the Master of Evil, violence in the Avengers. She's never had a stable
: environment.
Hmm. So she could have used some Zen conditioning, or at least a
meditative retreat to allow her to channel her destructive urges? I don't
see her as inherently uncentered or destructive before Chaos. She seemed
to have a very strong moral sense, albeit a personal, internal one. And
she was shown to spend extended period working on her powers, as a lone
witch (a solitaire, in Wiccan circles) might do.
: >If she really wanted to be back with the Vision, why not make him do as she
: >wishes rather than kill him and recreate a semblance of him AND Simon at
: >her table?
: Because she's narcissistic. Look it up. You don't seem to comprehend
: mental illness that doesn't involve demonic posession.
But her powers allow her to actually fulfill her narcissism, not just
achieve a poor simulation of it. She at least could do what Morgana did
in the first arc of Avengers v.3, and recreate the world on her own
terms. That's exactly what everyone is afraid of, right?
What I don't comprehend is how Bendis thinks the minimal series of crises
he's presented constitute a convincing portrayal of her alleged insanity.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> : Because she's narcissistic. Look it up. You don't seem to comprehend
> : mental illness that doesn't involve demonic posession.
>
> But her powers allow her to actually fulfill her narcissism, not just
> achieve a poor simulation of it.
No, that's the thing, you don't seem to understand what narcissism is.
She HAS fullfilled it with her powers.
"Narcissism is the pattern of traits and behaviors which involve
infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of others
and the egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one's gratification,
dominance and ambition." dictionary.com
Real people would only get in the way. Real people have real thoughts
and feelings that you have to take into consideration.
Creating a fake Vision is arguably more narcissitic than altering the
real one, and completly altering the real one to her will would be the
same as killing him, nor is it clear that she has the sort of fine
control to keep the real Vision in check.
Plus, she can no longer tell the difference between her Vision and the
real one. They're both equally real to her.
You ask why she hasn't altered the real Vision, as far as she knows,
she has.
Shawn H
: Creating a fake Vision is arguably more narcissitic than altering the
: real one, and completly altering the real one to her will would be the
: same as killing him, nor is it clear that she has the sort of fine
: control to keep the real Vision in check.
If she's as insane as you say, keeping him in check isn't going to be on
her mind. However, she was focused enough to send the Red Skull against
Cap, the have Tony inebrieted, to have Vizh give birth to baby Ultrons,
to have She-Hulk lose her rational mind, to have Rogue attack Carol, to
have Cap suffer illusions of losing Bucky all over again. She's got
plenty of focus when Bendis wants her to have it, her plan unfolded like
a conscious person was manipulating it ... only she wasn't.
: Plus, she can no longer tell the difference between her Vision and the
: real one. They're both equally real to her.
But why aren't they equally real to us?
: You ask why she hasn't altered the real Vision, as far as she knows,
: she has.
But how come we can tell the difference?
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Creating a fake Vision is arguably more narcissitic than altering the
> : real one, and completly altering the real one to her will would be the
> : same as killing him, nor is it clear that she has the sort of fine
> : control to keep the real Vision in check.
>
> If she's as insane as you say, keeping him in check isn't going to be on
> her mind. However, she was focused enough to send the Red Skull against
> Cap, the have Tony inebrieted, to have Vizh give birth to baby Ultrons,
> to have She-Hulk lose her rational mind, to have Rogue attack Carol, to
> have Cap suffer illusions of losing Bucky all over again. She's got
> plenty of focus when Bendis wants her to have it, her plan unfolded like
> a conscious person was manipulating it
She wasn't focused on any of these events, it was subconscous.
Tony
>>What I don't comprehend is how Bendis thinks the minimal series of crises
he's presented constitute a convincing portrayal of her alleged
insanity. <<
--credit where it's due, I'd say that Wanda being the "cause" of
Disassembled and not being "all there" was *a* portrayal of her
insanity (if not the best display of it).
Tony
Tony
>>No, that's the thing, you don't seem to understand what narcissism is.
She HAS fullfilled it with her powers.
"Narcissism is the pattern of traits and behaviors which involve
infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of others
and the egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one's gratification,
dominance and ambition." dictionary.com <<
--so perhaps Chaos would have worked better if, instead of insanity,
Wanda had succumbed to narcissism. That certainly would have been a
little more believable than her suddenly going insane w/out any prior
indication of mental instability (her last bout of instability was
caused by outside influences).
Looking back at Geoff Johns' run, Wanda seems to be more withdrawn, as
if she's studying more and more to learn about her powers. Her costume
even changes to--IMHO--reflect her inner focus. She sometimes even
seems detached from the other Avengers. Now, none of this supports the
idea that she was slowly going insane. It seems to support the idea
that Wanda was slipping deeper and deeper into herself, focusing
inwards with an almost manic obsession.
Chaos would have to have been tweaked to allow for her narcissism to
result in destroying the Avengers, but it still could have worked (in
fact, it likely would have worked better).
Tony
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
>
> : You ask why she hasn't altered the real Vision, as far as she knows,
> : she has.
>
> But how come we can tell the difference?
>
> Shawn H.
Cause it's a story?
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > If she's as insane as you say, keeping him in check isn't going to be on
: > her mind. However, she was focused enough to send the Red Skull against
: > Cap, the have Tony inebrieted, to have Vizh give birth to baby Ultrons,
: > to have She-Hulk lose her rational mind, to have Rogue attack Carol, to
: > have Cap suffer illusions of losing Bucky all over again. She's got
: > plenty of focus when Bendis wants her to have it, her plan unfolded like
: > a conscious person was manipulating it
: She wasn't focused on any of these events, it was subconscous.
I don't think the subconscious is capable of the careful planning that led
Wanda to toy with Cap and to have her children plot the demise of her
friends in the sequence of steps Bendis presented. Wanda's not Jean
Grey, she can't just read everyone's mind and conjure up their worse
fear, she has to think about it and remember what they were.
And narcissism isn't a subconscious illness, either; narcissists are quite
conscious of making things turn out in their own best interest, not
appearing like raving lunatics at all. Your diagnostic skills when it comes
to Wanda are no better than mine, because she hasn't presented a consistent
pattern of any sort of real mental ailment. She just lost it, because she's
Wanda.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Chaos would have to have been tweaked to allow for her narcissism to
: result in destroying the Avengers, but it still could have worked (in
: fact, it likely would have worked better).
Narcissism, which can befall either gender, definitely has more potential
than directionless hysteria that was nevertheless directed somehow. Also
might fit into a worst-case scenario for Wanda's introversion. Though it
would have required a more careful writer than Bendis to make it really
work in the context of Wanda's history. Here's a few more facts about
the condition that may or may not make it a valid diagnosis for Wanda:
# Most narcissists (75%) are men.
Interesting.
# NPD (=the Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is one of a "family" of
personality disorders (formerly known as "Cluster B"). Other members:
Borderline PD, Antisocial PD and Histrionic PD.
Antisocial, maybe.
# NPD is often diagnosed with other mental health disorders
("co-morbidity") - or with substance abuse, or impulsive and reckless
behaviours ("dual diagnosis").
Not very Wanda.
# The onset of narcissism is in infancy, childhood and early adolescence.
It is commonly attributed to childhood abuse and trauma inflicted by
parents, authority figures, or even peers.
Wanda's onset would be very late (another problem I have with her being
mentally ill at all), but "authority figure abuse" is there, for sure.
# Narcissists are either "Cerebral" (derive their narcissistic supply from
their intelligence or academic achievements) - or "Somatic" (derive their
narcissistic supply from their physique, exercise, physical or sexual
prowess and "conquests").
I suppose Wanda's super-hero career would put her in the physical camp,
though she'd have to believe she were a better witch than she were to fall
into the cerebral group.
# NPD is treated in talk therapy (psychodynamic or cognitive-behavioural).
The prognosis for an adult narcissist is poor, though his adaptation to
life and to others can improve with treatment. Medication is applied to
side-effects and behaviours (such as mood or affect disorders and
obsession-compulsion) - usually with some success.
Where's Doctor-Man when you need him? Super-Freud?
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn:
He showed a sick person. But he didn't show how she became sick. He started
from the end, and then didn't work backward.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn H wrote:
> : >
> : > If she's as insane as you say, keeping him in check isn't going to be on
> : > her mind. However, she was focused enough to send the Red Skull against
> : > Cap, the have Tony inebrieted, to have Vizh give birth to baby Ultrons,
> : > to have She-Hulk lose her rational mind, to have Rogue attack Carol, to
> : > have Cap suffer illusions of losing Bucky all over again. She's got
> : > plenty of focus when Bendis wants her to have it, her plan unfolded like
> : > a conscious person was manipulating it
>
> : She wasn't focused on any of these events, it was subconscous.
>
> I don't think the subconscious is capable of the careful planning that led
> Wanda to toy with Cap and to have her children plot the demise of her
> friends in the sequence of steps Bendis presented.
What? There was no careful planning. All that happened in Chaos was
"all the Avenger's worst nightmares come true" That's it. And Wanda
can make things happen without efort, thats the whole point, that her
power over magic is a result of her mutant ability and is not earned.
No effort was needed.
Furthermore there was nothing malicious about Wanda's romantic
interactions with Cap, I'd think they were conscous.
I really think you're playing dumb because you don't want to accept the
story. There's clearly no careful planning in Chaos.
samvaknin
Thank you for reprinting my work available here:
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq1.html
Take care.
Sam
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> Where's Doctor-Man when you need him? Super-Freud?
>
Don't you mean Doc Sampson?
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> Tony <Tony...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : Chaos would have to have been tweaked to allow for her narcissism to
> : result in destroying the Avengers, but it still could have worked (in
> : fact, it likely would have worked better).
>
> Narcissism, which can befall either gender, definitely has more potential
> than directionless hysteria that was nevertheless directed somehow. Also
> might fit into a worst-case scenario for Wanda's introversion.
Incidently, if you want to know why Wanda attacked the Avengers, it was
because they were the only people who could, and would have, pulled her
out of her mastubatory narcisstic fantasy.
She wanted to live in her delusional world, and was subconscously
trying to destroy the people who would have demanded that she
acknowledge reality and forcefully try to pull her out of it.
Remember, Wanda manifests the Avenger's greatest villians when they
confront her and try to pull her away from her children.
~~~~~~~~~
http://www.thecomicblog.com
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > I don't think the subconscious is capable of the careful planning that led
: > Wanda to toy with Cap and to have her children plot the demise of her
: > friends in the sequence of steps Bendis presented.
: What? There was no careful planning. All that happened in Chaos was
: "all the Avenger's worst nightmares come true" That's it. And Wanda
: can make things happen without efort, thats the whole point, that her
: power over magic is a result of her mutant ability and is not earned.
: No effort was needed.
There was an organization, and an implication of planning, to the
attacks. There was a sequence, there were even speeches given by her
manipulated victims.
: Furthermore there was nothing malicious about Wanda's romantic
: interactions with Cap, I'd think they were conscous.
So while she's consciously dallying with Cap, she's subconsciously
unleashing nightmares, and also setting up house with the Children she's
already made but hid in the closet?
: story. There's clearly no careful planning in Chaos.
Well, that's certainly the truest sentence ever, at least meta-textually.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > Narcissism, which can befall either gender, definitely has more potential
: > than directionless hysteria that was nevertheless directed somehow. Also
: > might fit into a worst-case scenario for Wanda's introversion.
: Incidently, if you want to know why Wanda attacked the Avengers, it was
: because they were the only people who could, and would have, pulled her
: out of her mastubatory narcisstic fantasy.
Right there, you're giving the story more credit than it deserves. Bendis
did not show this, though I can see why you're making the diagnosis and
the leap to make the story work for you. It's the same kind of leap I
made toward misogyny; as there is no clear explanation, we have to
provide our own.
: She wanted to live in her delusional world, and was subconscously
: trying to destroy the people who would have demanded that she
: acknowledge reality and forcefully try to pull her out of it.
: Remember, Wanda manifests the Avenger's greatest villians when they
: confront her and try to pull her away from her children.
Not exactly. She started up with Ultron and the Kree and She-Hulk before
anyone had done anything.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Thank you for reprinting my work available here:
: http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html
: http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq1.html
: Take care.
Oh, I actually took it from this page:
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php/type/doc/id/419
Sorry for the lack of attribution.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > Where's Doctor-Man when you need him? Super-Freud?
: >
: Don't you mean Doc Sampson?
I do indeed! Yes, please call him up. If he can help She-Hulk, one of the
victims, why can't he help the source as well?
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn H wrote:
> : >
> : > I don't think the subconscious is capable of the careful planning that led
> : > Wanda to toy with Cap and to have her children plot the demise of her
> : > friends in the sequence of steps Bendis presented.
>
> : What? There was no careful planning. All that happened in Chaos was
> : "all the Avenger's worst nightmares come true" That's it. And Wanda
> : can make things happen without efort, thats the whole point, that her
> : power over magic is a result of her mutant ability and is not earned.
> : No effort was needed.
>
> There was an organization, and an implication of planning, to the
> attacks. There was a sequence, there were even speeches given by her
> manipulated victims.
>
Speeches such as "Aaaagh, I'm being manipulated!" and "I'm going
crazzzzzzzy!!!"
and "Someone told us the Avengers will die!" said by aliens who weren't
real.
Yeah, those speeches sooo prove it was planned.
This so called "sequence" was just "more bad stuff happened." That's
no plan. It was just Wanda doing stuff.
Claiming that it was part ofa plan would be like, if I punched you in
the face, and, a minute later, as you recovered, kicked you in the
groin, you responded "Very clever. All part of your master plan!"
>
> So while she's consciously dallying with Cap, she's subconsciously
> unleashing nightmares,
Nope, that didn't happen till after she left Cap. Do pay attention.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > There was an organization, and an implication of planning, to the
: > attacks. There was a sequence, there were even speeches given by her
: > manipulated victims.
: >
: Speeches such as "Aaaagh, I'm being manipulated!" and "I'm going
: crazzzzzzzy!!!"
: and "Someone told us the Avengers will die!" said by aliens who weren't
: real.
Vision and Jack of Hearts both seemed to know what was going on but were
unable to say.
: Claiming that it was part ofa plan would be like, if I punched you in
: the face, and, a minute later, as you recovered, kicked you in the
: groin, you responded "Very clever. All part of your master plan!"
I see violent imagery comes naturally to you. Wanda didn't just fire
force beams at everyone. She aimed a quinjet, demoralized Cap and Iron
Man, systematically punished her ex-husband and she-hulk, exhumed a
corpse, and on and on. Her unconscious has quite the focused imagination.
: > So while she's consciously dallying with Cap, she's subconsciously
: > unleashing nightmares,
: Nope, that didn't happen till after she left Cap. Do pay attention.
The vengeful children had been talking to her for months.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn H wrote:
> : >
> : > There was an organization, and an implication of planning, to the
> : > attacks. There was a sequence, there were even speeches given by her
> : > manipulated victims.
> : >
>
> : Speeches such as "Aaaagh, I'm being manipulated!" and "I'm going
> : crazzzzzzzy!!!"
> : and "Someone told us the Avengers will die!" said by aliens who weren't
> : real.
>
> Vision and Jack of Hearts both seemed to know what was going on but were
> unable to say.
Yeah, so what? That doesn't indicate intricate planning, just that she
whipped something, as magic is effortless for her.
>
> : Claiming that it was part ofa plan would be like, if I punched you in
> : the face, and, a minute later, as you recovered, kicked you in the
> : groin, you responded "Very clever. All part of your master plan!"
>
> I see violent imagery comes naturally to you
In a discussion of violence, in a genre that revolves around violence?
Uhu.
Still trying to claim that your love for violent adolescent male
frequently sexist power fantasies are consistent with your attempt at
high brow philosophies and critiques?
Stay away from manga Shawn, after all, you said you "know better" than
to try reading something from a foreign culture like Japan. After all,
although many manga have strong female characters you CLAIM to want to
read about, you said, being foreign and all, it MIGHT be sexist or
something.( like that good old 100% American "misogynist" crap you
read! )
I didn't know manga titles, which are books you admit complete
ignorence of, could be so dangerous that they cannot even be tried out.
Maybe you should raid your local library and burn some just to be
sure.
I bow to your superior education, you amazing intellectual you! You're
like a funky Robert Crumb caricature. Giving a liberal speech one
moment, molesting women the next.
> : > So while she's consciously dallying with Cap, she's subconsciously
> : > unleashing nightmares,
>
> : Nope, that didn't happen till after she left Cap. Do pay attention.
>
> The vengeful children had been talking to her for months.
A fact you've invented, as they made their first appearence at the end
of Chaos, and even the what if special gives us no timeline.
--------
http://www.thecomicblog.com
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > : You ask why she hasn't altered the real Vision, as far as she knows,
: > : she has.
: >
: > But how come we can tell the difference?
: Cause it's a story?
But not a good one.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
And here we were actually communicating for a second, but, sadly, it's
not to be.
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Still trying to claim that your love for violent adolescent male
: frequently sexist power fantasies are consistent with your attempt at
: high brow philosophies and critiques?
You see a conflict there?
: Stay away from manga Shawn, after all, you said you "know better" than
: to try reading something from a foreign culture like Japan. After all,
: although many manga have strong female characters you CLAIM to want to
: read about, you said, being foreign and all, it MIGHT be sexist or
: something.( like that good old 100% American "misogynist" crap you
: read! )
Manga has its own way of dealing with sexuality and the female form,
which is not that interesting to me. I prefer comic art such as that by
Byrne, Adams and Perez. All the manga-influenced Marvel artists I can
think of suck. You can keep trying to turn my disinterest in a genre of
fiction into some version of racism or ethnocentrism if you wish; but I
don't think you'll prove it.
: I didn't know manga titles, which are books you admit complete
: ignorence of, could be so dangerous that they cannot even be tried out.
: Maybe you should raid your local library and burn some just to be
: sure.
Yeah, that follows. I don't care about them, so I must wish they were
stamped out.
: I bow to your superior education, you amazing intellectual you! You're
: like a funky Robert Crumb caricature. Giving a liberal speech one
: moment, molesting women the next.
That's me, I still read Bendis sometimes, I must be a secret rapist.
Makes perfect sense.
: > The vengeful children had been talking to her for months.
: A fact you've invented, as they made their first appearence at the end
: of Chaos, and even the what if special gives us no timeline.
The vengeful children appeared in Avengers #500, talking of plans already
underway. And as the What If special showed us Chaos averted before it
even began by Jessica's SuperSpecial MarySue StrengthandInsight, I'd say
the timeline is fairly clear as well.
But, then, you never read either that closely, did you?
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
>
> : She wanted to live in her delusional world, and was subconscously
> : trying to destroy the people who would have demanded that she
> : acknowledge reality and forcefully try to pull her out of it.
>
> : Remember, Wanda manifests the Avenger's greatest villians when they
> : confront her and try to pull her away from her children.
>
> Not exactly. She started up with Ultron and the Kree and She-Hulk before
> anyone had done anything.
>
But they WOULD HAVE, that's my point.
Or do you think the Avengers would have just shrugged their soldiers
when Wanda stopped showing up at meetings and not bothered to look for
her? And upon finding she had gone wacky do you think they'd just say
"whatever" and leave her be?
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> And here we were actually communicating for a second, but, sadly, it's
> not to be.
>
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Still trying to claim that your love for violent adolescent male
> : frequently sexist power fantasies are consistent with your attempt at
> : high brow philosophies and critiques?
>
> You see a conflict there?
Yes, you love trash, thus you're tastes are trash, and thus you have no
right to any perceived high brow philosophies or critiques. Your
opinion is trash.
>
> : Stay away from manga Shawn, after all, you said you "know better" than
> : to try reading something from a foreign culture like Japan. After all,
> : although many manga have strong female characters you CLAIM to want to
> : read about, you said, being foreign and all, it MIGHT be sexist or
> : something.( like that good old 100% American "misogynist" crap you
> : read! )
> You can keep trying to turn my disinterest in a genre of
> fiction into some version of racism or ethnocentrism if you wish; but I
> don't think you'll prove it.
First of all, its not a genre, and you seem to take pleasure in
struting your ignorance in that matter. I've already pointed out your
completly inconsistent use of the the word 'genre' as you wouldn't call
English novels a genre, but would label manga as such, but you tried to
dodge the point.
Secondly, you wrote this:
"and manga has its own issues regarding sexuality and sexism, which
I know better to wade into because I have little familiarity with that
genre. I leave it to its own experts. "
Which shows you find foreign ideas dangerous. You didn't say you have
no interest, you said you "know better" than to read it.
> : of Chaos, and even the what if special gives us no timeline.
>
> The vengeful children appeared in Avengers #500, talking of plans already
> underway.
After they were already underway...
You're claiming that the kids were around months before Avengers #500
because they appeared at the end of Avengers #500?
Do you sound act this stupid in real life?
>And as the What If special showed us Chaos averted before it
> even began by Jessica's SuperSpecial MarySue StrengthandInsight, I'd say
> the timeline is fairly clear as well.
And from this you can conclude that it was months before? Where does
it say that, other than your fantasy life? How do you know it wasn't
days before, or hours before, for that matter?
>
> But, then, you never read either that closely, did you?
>
I do, but I don't have access to the made up pages going on in your
head, so naturally I can't keep up with you the same way you do.
>
> : I didn't know manga titles, which are books you admit complete
> : ignorence of, could be so dangerous that they cannot even be tried out.
> : Maybe you should raid your local library and burn some just to be
> : sure.
>
> Yeah, that follows. I don't care about them, so I must wish they were
> stamped out.
No, you said you know better than to read them cause they are strange
and foreign.
>
> : I bow to your superior education, you amazing intellectual you! You're
> : like a funky Robert Crumb caricature. Giving a liberal speech one
> : moment, molesting women the next.
>
> That's me, I still read Bendis sometimes, I must be a secret rapist.
> Makes perfect sense.
You must like misogyny and sexism, since the stories you love are
filled with em, not that you'd admit it.
You're so called defense of Elektra is "It was presented as bad." LOL!
As if Chaos presented Wanda nuking the Avengers as good! What a
hypocrite you are!
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > : Still trying to claim that your love for violent adolescent male
: > : frequently sexist power fantasies are consistent with your attempt at
: > : high brow philosophies and critiques?
: >
: > You see a conflict there?
: Yes, you love trash, thus you're tastes are trash, and thus you have no
: right to any perceived high brow philosophies or critiques. Your
: opinion is trash.
Deep. What I refuse to do is make an elitist distinction between high and
low culture. It's all artistic product, it's all open to crutical scrutiny.
: > You can keep trying to turn my disinterest in a genre of
: > fiction into some version of racism or ethnocentrism if you wish; but I
: > don't think you'll prove it.
: First of all, its not a genre, and you seem to take pleasure in
: struting your ignorance in that matter. I've already pointed out your
: completly inconsistent use of the the word 'genre' as you wouldn't call
: English novels a genre, but would label manga as such, but you tried to
: dodge the point.
I don't use words the way you do. That's clear.
: Secondly, you wrote this:
: "and manga has its own issues regarding sexuality and sexism, which
: I know better to wade into because I have little familiarity with that
: genre. I leave it to its own experts. "
: Which shows you find foreign ideas dangerous. You didn't say you have
: no interest, you said you "know better" than to read it.
I "know better" than to read stuff I don't care about, or opine on stuff I
don't read. Your own reading of my words is intriguing, but way off the
mark in this case. I'm in fact fascinated by Japanese culture, and have
enjoyed Japanese novels, poetry and fine art for years. Just when it comes
to Manga, I've already got my comic books.
It's very revealing that for someone so interested in the meaning of words,
you're so willing to twist mine to make your points. But that goes hand in
hand with the inaccurate perceptions of what was going on in Chaos that
you've already evinced in our discussions.
: Do you sound act this stupid in real life?
No, I sound act perfectly reasonable a lot of the time.
: >And as the What If special showed us Chaos averted before it
: > even began by Jessica's SuperSpecial MarySue StrengthandInsight, I'd say
: > the timeline is fairly clear as well.
: And from this you can conclude that it was months before? Where does
: it say that, other than your fantasy life? How do you know it wasn't
: days before, or hours before, for that matter?
Must I go provide you a quote again? You'll just ignore it once it arrives.
But, here goes:
Immediately following a sequence featuring Jessica playing a significant
role in the Avengers most recent battle with the Squadron Supreme (which
took place in the second year of Kurt's run, lonnnnggg before Chaos or
Austen or Johns), she notices Wanda is acting funny. As Bendis exposits
"every time she whould use her reality-altering powers ... she would slowly
lose control of what reality was." That's EVERY time. Since the beginning.
He expounds on "Her inability to birth children naturally" as if, again,
it's due to a lack in her and not a lack in Vision. However inaccurate, she
recognized this "inability" long before Kurt's run on the Avengers. There's
a timeline in What If Jessica Jones, despite your not recognizing it.
In fact, the basic structure of almost every What If there ever was is a
timeline, as the "what if" concept refers to "what if something different
happened at a crucial point?" Right? Without a timeline, there's no story
at all.
"It's a tragedy no one in the world would fully get over. Because it could
have been caught in time." As What If Jessica DOES catch it in time, the
implication is that Wanda's illness is recognized long before the events of
Chaos, as the Chaos story itself strongly stresses it should have been.
The causal chain is not mysterious. It's strange that you want to discount
it.
: > But, then, you never read either that closely, did you?
: I do, but I don't have access to the made up pages going on in your
: head, so naturally I can't keep up with you the same way you do.
Well here's your chance, I'm always happy to explain.
: > Yeah, that follows. I don't care about them, so I must wish they were
: > stamped out.
: No, you said you know better than to read them cause they are strange
: and foreign.
Disinterest is not ethnocentric condemnation.
: > That's me, I still read Bendis sometimes, I must be a secret rapist.
: > Makes perfect sense.
: You must like misogyny and sexism, since the stories you love are
: filled with em, not that you'd admit it.
I like superheroes and superheroines. I know it's not going to be ideal.
But I notice when it's completely unacceptable, as Chaos was.
: You're so called defense of Elektra is "It was presented as bad." LOL!
: As if Chaos presented Wanda nuking the Avengers as good! What a
: hypocrite you are!
You should take more care to attribute that "it." "It" does not refer to
the entirety of the Elektra saga, or even to Elektra's career arc. Elektra
is a complex, multi-faceted character under Miller's pen.
Rather, the "it" in that case referred to her murder at the hands of
Bullseye. Her death, while noble (she was killed for betraying Kingpin, a
force of evil), was presented as tragic and unfortunate and something not
to be celebrated. Something, in fact, to be immediately reversed by the
hero himself.
For an exact comparison to this story, let me ask you this: If Wanda is
executed, will it be presented as "bad?"
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > : She wanted to live in her delusional world, and was subconscously
: > : trying to destroy the people who would have demanded that she
: > : acknowledge reality and forcefully try to pull her out of it.
: >
: > : Remember, Wanda manifests the Avenger's greatest villians when they
: > : confront her and try to pull her away from her children.
: >
: > Not exactly. She started up with Ultron and the Kree and She-Hulk before
: > anyone had done anything.
: But they WOULD HAVE, that's my point.
And if she knew they WOULD HAVE, that only supports my argument that she
was making conscious pre-emptive strikes.
: Or do you think the Avengers would have just shrugged their soldiers
: when Wanda stopped showing up at meetings and not bothered to look for
: her? And upon finding she had gone wacky do you think they'd just say
: "whatever" and leave her be?
According to the story, that's exactly what they did. Wanda's been going
insane for years, and no one cared enough to notice, except for Jessica
Jones in an alternate timeline. That's why all the big dudes feel so guilty
and let Magneto cart her away. That's why Tony disbands the Avengers (sort
of, until he funds a smaller team he wants instead). None of them can get
over their failure to "look for her" or do anything but say "whatever and
let her be?"
What story were you reading?
Shawn H.
~consul
> Dan McEwen wrote:
>> I don't see why not. At the very least, Wanda's own DNA is involved.
>> And considering parthenogenesis is a very real possibility, I don't see
>> why her children couldn't have been real. Byrne just wanted to jettison
>> Wanda's family, and this was the easiest way for him to do it.
> Eh? How is Wanda's DNA involved if she just summons up some kids from
> thin air?
Because that's the way she thinks it had to happen. She's biological, she knows how to
make babies biologically, and she also thinks that she needed a 2 parent home. Thus,
that's what she did.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here within the Games, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
~consul
> A question that occurred to me about The Scarlet Witch. If she's so
> powerful that good guys have to discuss killing her when she's out of
> control because she could remake reality, why aren't her children real?
> Why can't this near-omnipotent being make her own kids?
Way I see it, she did. And then she was convinced to unmake them, and that is what is
pissing her off now. That she was a weak-willed gullible and manipulated. She should have
stuck to er guns and kept the kids.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn H wrote:
>
> : > : Still trying to claim that your love for violent adolescent male
> : > : frequently sexist power fantasies are consistent with your attempt at
> : > : high brow philosophies and critiques?
> : >
> : > You see a conflict there?
>
> : Yes, you love trash, thus you're tastes are trash, and thus you have no
> : right to any perceived high brow philosophies or critiques. Your
> : opinion is trash.
>
> Deep. What I refuse to do is make an elitist distinction between high and
> low culture. It's all artistic product, it's all open to crutical scrutiny.
Yet you love the stuff that are crap by any reasonable applications of
YOUR OWN STANDARDS. You've even practically admited that a lot of the
stuff you love is sexist, as you continue to insist on an artificial
difference between Dark Phoenix and Chaos, even while admitting your
complete and utter bias on the matter.
What does that say about you? That you're a hypocrite, or not really a
feminist after all?
You're like some sort of civil rights activists who complains about the
depiction of blacks on the Sopranos and goes home, gets out a big tub
of popcorn, and cracks up to an Amos and Andy marathon.
I'm not distinguishing between "high" and "low brow" culture, I'm
distinghuising between "sexist" and "not sexist" applying your own
standards, and it turns out you love sexist crap.
>
> For an exact comparison to this story, let me ask you this: If Wanda is
> executed, will it be presented as "bad?"
Sorry, my dear friend, but that discussion occured before House of M
and revolved only around "Chaos," where Wanda, a powerful woman, was
destroyed in a mental sense. You'll recall that you said "Chaos" was
misogynist while the death of Elecktra is good, whole hearted
literature. Nice attempt at slithering, though.
And do I have to remind you that Jean's death was VERY a good thing?
~~~~~~~~
http://www.thecomicblog.com
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > : But they WOULD HAVE, that's my point.
: >
: > And if she knew they WOULD HAVE, that only supports my argument that she
: > was making conscious pre-emptive strikes.
: I'd say such a decision can be unconscous, but its pretty clear you
: don't know a thing about psychology other than "supervillians possess
: you and make you do bad thing."
It was more than a decision, it was a plan. Only when we finally saw her,
she was incapable of planning. A horrid structural flaw that undermined
the story.
: > What story were you reading?
: You're once again playing dumb. All those years, when Wanda was
: getting worse, she had never shut herself of from reality and created
: her own version of a family to live to th eexclusion of the external
: world, now did she?
Isn't that exactly what she did with the first version of her children?
They weren't ever really real either, were they?
Dr. Strange in #503: "Her kids disappeared? I delivered those babies! Why
didn't anyone inform me of this immediately?"
In Bendis' story, by his own words, Dr. Strange is a poor Sorceror
Supreme (certainly far from omniscient), and the Avengers are careless
fools.
: Are you saying the Avenger's wouldn't have noticed when she STOPPED
: SHOWING UP FOR TEAM MEETINGS? Don't be daft.
I'm saying they didn't notice. What If Jessica Jones actually had Wanda
saying "don't mind me, I'll be down later" and occupying herself in her
room with phantoms.
No one noticed but Jessica. That's Bendis' story, not mine. The disaster
in Chaos is averted in the What If because Jessica does what the Avengers
themselves never did. I know it makes Bendis' story more tolerable to
ignore the parts you don't like, but those parts remain present and
problematic.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: I'm not distinguishing between "high" and "low brow" culture, I'm
: distinghuising between "sexist" and "not sexist" applying your own
: standards, and it turns out you love sexist crap.
I don't agree with your categories.
: > For an exact comparison to this story, let me ask you this: If Wanda is
: > executed, will it be presented as "bad?"
: Sorry, my dear friend, but that discussion occured before House of M
: and revolved only around "Chaos," where Wanda, a powerful woman, was
: destroyed in a mental sense. You'll recall that you said "Chaos" was
: misogynist while the death of Elecktra is good, whole hearted
: literature. Nice attempt at slithering, though.
: And do I have to remind you that Jean's death was VERY a good thing?
Do I have to remind you that "Jean" never died?
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn H wrote:
>
> : > : She wanted to live in her delusional world, and was subconscously
> : > : trying to destroy the people who would have demanded that she
> : > : acknowledge reality and forcefully try to pull her out of it.
> : >
> : > : Remember, Wanda manifests the Avenger's greatest villians when they
> : > : confront her and try to pull her away from her children.
> : >
> : > Not exactly. She started up with Ultron and the Kree and She-Hulk before
> : > anyone had done anything.
>
> : But they WOULD HAVE, that's my point.
>
> And if she knew they WOULD HAVE, that only supports my argument that she
> was making conscious pre-emptive strikes.
I'd say such a decision can be unconscous, but its pretty clear you
don't know a thing about psychology other than "supervillians possess
you and make you do bad thing."
>
> : Or do you think the Avengers would have just shrugged their soldiers
> : when Wanda stopped showing up at meetings and not bothered to look for
> : her? And upon finding she had gone wacky do you think they'd just say
> : "whatever" and leave her be?
>
> According to the story, that's exactly what they did. Wanda's been going
> insane for years, and no one cared enough to notice, except for Jessica
> Jones in an alternate timeline. That's why all the big dudes feel so guilty
> and let Magneto cart her away. That's why Tony disbands the Avengers (sort
> of, until he funds a smaller team he wants instead). None of them can get
> over their failure to "look for her" or do anything but say "whatever and
> let her be?"
>
> What story were you reading?
>
You're once again playing dumb. All those years, when Wanda was
getting worse, she had never shut herself of from reality and created
her own version of a family to live to th eexclusion of the external
world, now did she?
Are you saying the Avenger's wouldn't have noticed when she STOPPED
SHOWING UP FOR TEAM MEETINGS? Don't be daft.
~~~~~~~
http://www.thecomicblog.com
~consul
> samvaknin <pa...@unet.com.mk> wrote:
> : Thank you for reprinting my work available here:
> : http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html
> : http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq1.html
> : Take care.
> Oh, I actually took it from this page:
> http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php/type/doc/id/419
> Sorry for the lack of attribution.
What I want to know is how did the good doctor know that Shawn posted? Is he a lurker? A
Random search on google?
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: Doc Samson worked with her brother, Pietro before in X-Factor. Excellent talking heads
: issue. Especially great characterization and motivation discussions for Pietro.
From the Peter David days?
Shawn H.
~consul
Doc Samson worked with her brother, Pietro before in X-Factor. Excellent talking heads
issue. Especially great characterization and motivation discussions for Pietro.
~consul
Dah.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
Shawn H
: > : Shawn H wrote:
: > : > I do indeed! Yes, please call him up. If he can help She-Hulk, one of the
: > : > victims, why can't he help the source as well?
: > : Doc Samson worked with her brother, Pietro before in X-Factor. Excellent talking heads
: > : issue. Especially great characterization and motivation discussions for Pietro.
: > From the Peter David days?
: Dah.
Those were the good old days. That was one X-men re-arrangement (where each
book got its own set of characters) that worked pretty well, for awhile.
Right after the whole Maddie Demon Knight thing, right?
Shawn H.
Steven R. Stahl
Shawn H wrote:
[snip]
> For an exact comparison to this story, let me ask you this: If Wanda is
> executed, will it be presented as "bad?"
>
> Shawn H.
If Dormammu or another mystical/magical baddie is revealed to be
manipulating Wanda, as Dormammu's appearance in EXCALIBUR #14 suggests,
I predict that the manipulation will be an attempt to have it both ways
regarding Wanda's role in "Avengers Disassembled." Yes, Wanda's power
alters reality; yes, the use of the power drove her insane, but--; no,
she didn't *actually* kill the Avengers on her own. She was manipulated
into doing *those* awful things. So she and everybody else should feel
much better.
Except the readers.
SRS
scott34494
Of course she did die, only a total idiot would say Dark Phoenix as
written cannot be critiqueed without applying a later story by a
different author.
That's like saying Hamlet can't be critiqued without taking Rosencratz
and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, or, hey, why not The Lion
King, into account.
Stay away from literature criticism, Shawn, you really, really suck at
it.
Legitimate feminist critiques talk about how a media work reflects
SOCIETY AS A WHOLE'S assumptions and values about women. The fact that
you attempt to link such imagry to BENDIS THE PERSON, shows you really
haven't a fuckin clue what you are doing, nor do you understand, even
at the most basic level, what feminist criticisms are about.
You sir, have repeatedly abused what alleged academic credentials you
have, with ass backward statements about a field of study you clearly
know nothing about. What you are, is not an intellectual, but yet
another internet fanboy troll.
~~~~~~~
http://www.thecomicblog
Nathan P. Mahney
news:d9d0vo$81v$3...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
Long after. There was a whole period with no X-Men, then X-Tinction Agenda,
then the Muir Island Saga in between - it was at least 2 or 3 years.
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
Writing:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > Do I have to remind you that "Jean" never died?
: Of course she did die, only a total idiot would say Dark Phoenix as
: written cannot be critiqueed without applying a later story by a
: different author.
So retcons work when you like them, and are to be ignored when you don't,
right? Wanda has "always" been crazy, but it really WAS Jean who died on
the moon, and not a Phoenix construct while Jean hibernated in the East
river (or was it the Hudson?). Continue to pick and choose as you will,
but this "total idiot" recognizes comics as a serial medium, where
changing previous stories is something that has become an accepted
practice. The next step is to judge whether that change has merit or is a
non-starter, which is why we discuss them here.
: That's like saying Hamlet can't be critiqued without taking Rosencratz
: and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, or, hey, why not The Lion
: King, into account.
Wrong again. It's rather like saying you don't have to agree with S7 Deep
Space Nine to think S2 was pretty cool, but only just even there. Comics
are their own medium, and the closest real comparison is soaps, as far as
passage of time and the never-ending nature of the narrative.
: Stay away from literature criticism, Shawn, you really, really suck at
: it.
Stay away from insults. If your points have merit, they'll stand without
the cheap shots to buck them up.
: Legitimate feminist critiques talk about how a media work reflects
: SOCIETY AS A WHOLE'S assumptions and values about women. The fact that
: you attempt to link such imagry to BENDIS THE PERSON, shows you really
: haven't a fuckin clue what you are doing, nor do you understand, even
: at the most basic level, what feminist criticisms are about.
Bendis the person is affected by society as a whole, too.
: You sir, have repeatedly abused what alleged academic credentials you
: have, with ass backward statements about a field of study you clearly
: know nothing about. What you are, is not an intellectual, but yet
: another internet fanboy troll.
I'm not the one that keeps harping on my academic credentials. I'm
content to let my words speak for themselves.
Shawn H.
Nathan P. Mahney
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn H wrote:
> : >
> : > Do I have to remind you that "Jean" never died?
>
> : Of course she did die, only a total idiot would say Dark Phoenix as
> : written cannot be critiqueed without applying a later story by a
> : different author.
>
> So retcons work when you like them, and are to be ignored when you don't,
> right? Wanda has "always" been crazy, but it really WAS Jean who died on
> the moon, and not a Phoenix construct while Jean hibernated in the East
> river (or was it the Hudson?).
Except Jean at the bottom of the Hudson was the retcon. All Morrison did
was retcon it back the way it should have been.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > samvaknin <pa...@unet.com.mk> wrote:
: > : Thank you for reprinting my work available here:
: > : http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html
: > : http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq1.html
: > : Take care.
: > Oh, I actually took it from this page:
: > http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php/type/doc/id/419
: > Sorry for the lack of attribution.
: What I want to know is how did the good doctor know that Shawn posted? Is he a lurker? A
: Random search on google?
I'm hoping he's a comics fan, but I'm betting he regularly does google
sweeps to check the use of his own work. I suppose I should be happy that
he found my use to be fair.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn H wrote:
> : >
> : > Do I have to remind you that "Jean" never died?
>
> : Of course she did die, only a total idiot would say Dark Phoenix as
> : written cannot be critiqueed without applying a later story by a
> : different author.
>
> So retcons work when you like them, and are to be ignored when you don't,
> right?
No, you wacky, clueless person, you review each story on its own terms.
It's the only legitimate way to look at it.
A misogynist story doesn't suddenly become unmisogynist because ten
years later someone writes a sequal. Don't be daft.
>Wanda has "always" been crazy,
As per Bendis's story. In a Busiek issue, she has not always been
crazy. I see you insist on the most low brow, simplistic reading of a
comic as possible, the whole "continuity RULES geek reading", which
shows again your absolute cluelessness when it comes to legitimate
literature critiquing.
> but it really WAS Jean who died on
> the moon, and not a Phoenix construct while Jean hibernated in the East
> river (or was it the Hudson?). Continue to pick and choose as you will,
> but this "total idiot" recognizes comics as a serial medium, where
> changing previous stories is something that has become an accepted
> practice.
Previous story refrences as an accepted practice does not mean our
critical reading of old stories magically changes. Only a clueless git
would apply such a stupid non- analysis to what is going on in these
stories.
I mean, lets take your idiotic critical thinking to its natural
progression. Chaos must tell us as much about Stan Lee or Kurt Busiek
or Roger Stern as it does about Bendis, with your moronic critique,
after all, they are, apparently, writing the same serial story.
The next step is to judge whether that change has merit or is a
> non-starter, which is why we discuss them here.
>
> : That's like saying Hamlet can't be critiqued without taking Rosencratz
> : and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, or, hey, why not The Lion
> : King, into account.
>
> Wrong again. It's rather like saying you don't have to agree with S7 Deep
> Space Nine to think S2 was pretty cool,
No, actually, Shawn, the analogy is you are saying that if season 7 of
Deep Space 9 sucks, then Season 2 retroactivly sucks, even if you
enjoyed it at the time, and even if it was by different writers. Hey,
it's your argument, not mine. Your the one that gave the stupid Jean
example, saying a story is retroactivly changed by a new one.
but only just even there. Comics
> are their own medium, and the closest real comparison is soaps, as far as
> passage of time and the never-ending nature of the narrative.
You once again show your blatatent ignorance of the most basic tenants
of critical literature theory. Comics are a medium, sure, but you
insist on treating "the tradition of Marvel and DC superhero comics"
and "comics" as being the same thing.
In review Shawn, comics are a medium
superhero comics are a genre
tv is a medium
soap opera is a genre
No charge for the free lesson. Now let's see if you remember it this
time, aye? Or perhaps you get pleasure from showing that you haven't
accepted being corrected, you'd rather be wrong than concede you made a
mistake, it seems.
>
> : Stay away from literature criticism, Shawn, you really, really suck at
> : it.
>
> Stay away from insults. If your points have merit, they'll stand without
> the cheap shots to buck them up.
Show any sign at all of say, acknowledging the fact that superhero
comics are a genre, and comics are the medium, and maybe I'll stop
insulting you, but, thus far, you'd rather be wrong than be corrected.
>
> : Legitimate feminist critiques talk about how a media work reflects
> : SOCIETY AS A WHOLE'S assumptions and values about women. The fact that
> : you attempt to link such imagry to BENDIS THE PERSON, shows you really
> : haven't a fuckin clue what you are doing, nor do you understand, even
> : at the most basic level, what feminist criticisms are about.
>
> Bendis the person is affected by society as a whole, too.
Bendis as a person cannot be inferred to be "misogyist" or "sexist"
based on feminist theory, which only applies to analysis of images in
the collective conscousness.
These images neither started nor ended with Bendis and reflect the
pulse of popular culture as a whole.
A critical discussion of whether or not Bendis is misogynist would
involve an auteurial study of his body of work.
You are unable to do this because
a) You haven't read much of his stuff
b) You're so off the wall nuts that's you'd attempt to make a
judgement of his whole output based on one story, which is NOT a
legitimate application of critical theory, and is NOT cool.
>I'm not the one that keeps harping on my academic credentials. I'm
>content to let my words speak for themselves.
You initially presented yourself, and like to think of yourself, it
would seem, as an academic interesting in teaching as many people as
possible about feminist theory.
I happen to have the academic backround to recognise your bullshit for
what it is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.thecomicblog.com
Steven R. Stahl
badth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> A question that occurred to me about The Scarlet Witch. If she's so
> powerful that good guys have to discuss killing her when she's out of
> control because she could remake reality, why aren't her children real?
> Why can't this near-omnipotent being make her own kids?
Bendis, et al., appear to be relying very heavily on their source
material (Byrne's AWC issues), in which Agatha Harkness stated (AWC
#52) that only God can create life and Dark Wanda stated (AWC #56) that
she couldn't resurrect the dead. If Wanda were to be interpreted as
able to create life, then there would be nothing left of the "Avengers
Disassembled" and "HOUSE OF M" plots, even by Marvel's standards.
An interesting aspect of the "can't create life" argument that I
haven't seen mentioned is that magick has been shown to be used to
create soulless life. Clea created a rabbit in Englehart's Dr. STRANGE
#1 (the rabbit appeared later in DS #6) and a cat in another Englehart
issue (#17?). In Dr. STRANGE, SORCERER SUPREME #90, DeMatteis had
Chthon create a being (the Midwife) that was indistinguishable from
organic life.
Thus, the argument isn't that Wanda can't use magick to create life;
it's that she can't use magick to create *ensouled* life.
Apply that argument to the conception of the twins in V & SW #3, and
one encounters the problem that the eggs Wanda affected with the spell
were already alive. She only used magick to blend her and Vizh's
spirits with the eggs, as a substitute for natural fertilization.
Thus, the argument retreats from "can't create life" to "can't create
ensouled life" to "can't use magick to blend their spirits with the
eggs, a la fertilization." At that point, the contention is only about
the interpretation of magick in fiction, which is a silly contention.
BTW, there's been progress in the real world in creating life.
Scientists can now create viruses by obtaining DNA sequences from
commercial suppliers and combining them (for a well-publicized case,
see
http://www.geocities.com/giantfideli/cellnews_pentagon_make_synthetic_poliovirus.html
). While scientists haven't created original cellular life yet, the
work is feasible in principle (see, e.g.,
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050325-1.htm and
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/resources/readings_deamer3.shtml
). The tendency of organic molecules to self-assemble into structures,
aside from increasing scientists' confidence that life could develop
naturally, has been put to use in nanotechnology and DNA computing (see
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKUF-5UZJFP?OpenDocument
)
SRS
Shawn H
: "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:d9eo11$h2b$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
: > scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Shawn H wrote:
: > : >
: > : > Do I have to remind you that "Jean" never died?
: >
: > : Of course she did die, only a total idiot would say Dark Phoenix as
: > : written cannot be critiqueed without applying a later story by a
: > : different author.
: >
: > So retcons work when you like them, and are to be ignored when you don't,
: > right? Wanda has "always" been crazy, but it really WAS Jean who died on
: > the moon, and not a Phoenix construct while Jean hibernated in the East
: > river (or was it the Hudson?).
: Except Jean at the bottom of the Hudson was the retcon. All Morrison did
: was retcon it back the way it should have been.
Did he come out and actually do it? He reconnected Jean and the Phoenix
force, but did he undo the difference between her two bodies?
Shawn H.
~consul
> : Random search on google?
> I'm hoping he's a comics fan, but I'm betting he regularly does google
> sweeps to check the use of his own work. I suppose I should be happy that
> he found my use to be fair.
It was freaky to me, as he did it so soon, as according to my server at least, that he
posted after yours.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
Shawn H
: > So retcons work when you like them, and are to be ignored when you don't,
: > right?
I'm ignoring all your insults, because I'm a better person than you.
: >Wanda has "always" been crazy,
: As per Bendis's story. In a Busiek issue, she has not always been
: crazy. I see you insist on the most low brow, simplistic reading of a
Busiek isn't writing her now. Until continuity actively updates the last
story, the last story is the one we have to go on. That's why I find a
misconceived one like Disassembled so damaging. I fully expect someone
to correct Bendis' errors, and it can't happen soon enough. I'm just
giving him the chance to do it himself in House of M.
: comic as possible, the whole "continuity RULES geek reading", which
: shows again your absolute cluelessness when it comes to legitimate
: literature critiquing.
Hadn't we decided that comics are not literature already? And now you
think they are? You're arguing three sides of every fence we come across.
: I mean, lets take your idiotic critical thinking to its natural
: progression. Chaos must tell us as much about Stan Lee or Kurt Busiek
: or Roger Stern as it does about Bendis, with your moronic critique,
: after all, they are, apparently, writing the same serial story.
Retcons do change the meaning of what went before. That's what they are
for. The Phoenix retcon told us having Jean back was more important than
having closure on that story. The Wanda retcon shows that Bendis doesn't
understand the character, and is willing to rely on misogynist
stereotypes to sell books.
: > Wrong again. It's rather like saying you don't have to agree with S7 Deep
: > Space Nine to think S2 was pretty cool,
: No, actually, Shawn, the analogy is you are saying that if season 7 of
: Deep Space 9 sucks, then Season 2 retroactivly sucks, even if you
: enjoyed it at the time, and even if it was by different writers. Hey,
: it's your argument, not mine. Your the one that gave the stupid Jean
: example, saying a story is retroactivly changed by a new one.
It's called a retcon, after all.
: but only just even there. Comics
: > are their own medium, and the closest real comparison is soaps, as far as
: > passage of time and the never-ending nature of the narrative.
: You once again show your blatatent ignorance of the most basic tenants
: of critical literature theory. Comics are a medium, sure, but you
: insist on treating "the tradition of Marvel and DC superhero comics"
: and "comics" as being the same thing.
I also insist on posting in racmu, strangely enough, as if I'm aware of
which comics I'm talking about.
: > Stay away from insults. If your points have merit, they'll stand without
: > the cheap shots to buck them up.
: Show any sign at all of say, acknowledging the fact that superhero
: comics are a genre, and comics are the medium, and maybe I'll stop
: insulting you, but, thus far, you'd rather be wrong than be corrected.
I don't see the relevance of the distinction in this Marvel super-hero
comics forum. Which genre I'm discussing is a given, but it doesn't
change the serial nature of the medium.
: > : Legitimate feminist critiques talk about how a media work reflects
: > : SOCIETY AS A WHOLE'S assumptions and values about women. The fact that
: > : you attempt to link such imagry to BENDIS THE PERSON, shows you really
: > : haven't a fuckin clue what you are doing, nor do you understand, even
: > : at the most basic level, what feminist criticisms are about.
: >
: > Bendis the person is affected by society as a whole, too.
: Bendis as a person cannot be inferred to be "misogyist" or "sexist"
: based on feminist theory, which only applies to analysis of images in
: the collective conscousness.
That is not what it only applies to. Images are not the only subject
matter open to feminist critique. Ideas, practices, behaviours, people,
laws, institutions and the whole of society itself, in all its parts and
numerous details, are also valid topics. Your understanding of feminism
is as flawed, and biased, as ever I see.
: These images neither started nor ended with Bendis and reflect the
: pulse of popular culture as a whole.
And authors who create popular culture must be held accountable for their
continued use and presence. They don't just appear out of the ether, and
your ability to critique my analytical skills is suspect when you refuse
to even allow for analysis of subjects you find off-limits.
: A critical discussion of whether or not Bendis is misogynist would
: involve an auteurial study of his body of work.
Such as Avengers Disassembled.
: You are unable to do this because
: a) You haven't read much of his stuff
Only Daredevil, Ultimate Spider-man, Alias, Avengers, New Avengers, and
House of M. When will I reach the requisite saturation point where I'm
actually qualified to speak on the Great Man. 100+ issues isn't enough to
encompass his body of work, huh?
: b) You're so off the wall nuts that's you'd attempt to make a
: judgement of his whole output based on one story, which is NOT a
: legitimate application of critical theory, and is NOT cool.
In this case, my critical apparatus is in the service of reviewing that
one story, which I found lacking for reasons I specified. I'm not
required to submit a post-doctoral thesis on his body of work to condemn
his story, or to condemn him for writing it. His story sucked, and he
sucks for writing it.
: >I'm not the one that keeps harping on my academic credentials. I'm
: >content to let my words speak for themselves.
: You initially presented yourself, and like to think of yourself, it
: would seem, as an academic interesting in teaching as many people as
: possible about feminist theory.
When asked what my credentials were, I gave them. I'm sorry they
threatened you so.
: I happen to have the academic backround to recognise your bullshit for
: what it is.
You happen to have a differing critical perspective, which you find so
shaky you must resort to insults regularly rather than trust your own
critical thought. It's not pretty.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > ~consul <con...@invaliddolphins-cove.com> wrote:
: > : What I want to know is how did the good doctor know that Shawn posted? Is he a lurker? A
: > : Random search on google?
: > I'm hoping he's a comics fan, but I'm betting he regularly does google
: > sweeps to check the use of his own work. I suppose I should be happy that
: > he found my use to be fair.
: It was freaky to me, as he did it so soon, as according to my server at least, that he
: posted after yours.
Maybe he's got some sort of little bot on the site that notices when
someone copies and pastes? Is that even possible?
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : > So retcons work when you like them, and are to be ignored when you don't,
> : > right?
>
> I'm ignoring all your insults, because I'm a better person than you.
>
Watch your attributions, I never said that.
> : >Wanda has "always" been crazy,
>
> : As per Bendis's story. In a Busiek issue, she has not always been
> : crazy. I see you insist on the most low brow, simplistic reading of a
>
> Busiek isn't writing her now. Until continuity actively updates the last
> story, the last story is the one we have to go on.
Nonsense, Avengers as a whole is a group of stories under the same
label. Each individual one is evaluated on its own merits.
That's why I find a
> misconceived one like Disassembled so damaging. I fully expect someone
> to correct Bendis' errors, and it can't happen soon enough. I'm just
> giving him the chance to do it himself in House of M.
>
> : comic as possible, the whole "continuity RULES geek reading", which
> : shows again your absolute cluelessness when it comes to legitimate
> : literature critiquing.
>
> Hadn't we decided that comics are not literature already?
I asked you to define literature, you were unable to do so.
Why do you make the assumption that critical theory only refers to
"literature?" I never made any such assumption. Critical theory
applies to any form of artistic expression.
And now you
> think they are? You're arguing three sides of every fence we come across.
>
Nonsense, those are two completly unrelated arguments, but you're an
illogical person, and mix everything together.
> : I mean, lets take your idiotic critical thinking to its natural
> : progression. Chaos must tell us as much about Stan Lee or Kurt Busiek
> : or Roger Stern as it does about Bendis, with your moronic critique,
> : after all, they are, apparently, writing the same serial story.
>
> Retcons do change the meaning of what went before.
What they do not do is change the previous story. A critical reading
of the previous story is still the same, still refective of the context
of the time, and the creators... unless one goes by the shallowest
"geek" reading, which is as far from intelligent or academic as
possible.
>
> : but only just even there. Comics
> : > are their own medium, and the closest real comparison is soaps, as far as
> : > passage of time and the never-ending nature of the narrative.
>
> : You once again show your blatatent ignorance of the most basic tenants
> : of critical literature theory. Comics are a medium, sure, but you
> : insist on treating "the tradition of Marvel and DC superhero comics"
> : and "comics" as being the same thing.
>
> I also insist on posting in racmu, strangely enough, as if I'm aware of
> which comics I'm talking about.
Yet you prefer to unapoligetically use the wrong terminology every
time, and you claim to be using something approaching intellectual
criqique. Like I said, you're the lowest brow geek, using the lowest
brow reading methods. Nowhere near a true academic.
>
> : > Stay away from insults. If your points have merit, they'll stand without
> : > the cheap shots to buck them up.
>
> : Show any sign at all of say, acknowledging the fact that superhero
> : comics are a genre, and comics are the medium, and maybe I'll stop
> : insulting you, but, thus far, you'd rather be wrong than be corrected.
>
> I don't see the relevance of the distinction in this Marvel super-hero
> comics forum. Which genre I'm discussing is a given, but it doesn't
> change the serial nature of the medium.
Retcons are NOT an element of comics, or even superhero comics, they
are an element of corporate owned long running superhero comics, and
say nothing of the serial nature of the medium itself.
>
> : > : Legitimate feminist critiques talk about how a media work reflects
> : > : SOCIETY AS A WHOLE'S assumptions and values about women. The fact that
> : > : you attempt to link such imagry to BENDIS THE PERSON, shows you really
> : > : haven't a fuckin clue what you are doing, nor do you understand, even
> : > : at the most basic level, what feminist criticisms are about.
> : >
> : > Bendis the person is affected by society as a whole, too.
>
> : Bendis as a person cannot be inferred to be "misogyist" or "sexist"
> : based on feminist theory, which only applies to analysis of images in
> : the collective conscousness.
>
> That is not what it only applies to. Images are not the only subject
> matter open to feminist critique. Ideas, practices, behaviours, people,
> laws, institutions and the whole of society itself, in all its parts and
> numerous details,
but not the individual!
are also valid topics. Your understanding of feminism
> is as flawed, and biased, as ever I see.
I was referring to feminist critiques of art, you know, what you were
doing. It cannot be used to infer the individual's personality or
perspective. Feminism is about SOCIETY's beliefs regarding women, not
individuals.
>
> : These images neither started nor ended with Bendis and reflect the
> : pulse of popular culture as a whole.
>
> And authors who create popular culture must be held accountable for their
> continued use and presence. They don't just appear out of the ether, and
> your ability to critique my analytical skills is suspect when you refuse
> to even allow for analysis of subjects you find off-limits.
>
> : A critical discussion of whether or not Bendis is misogynist would
> : involve an auteurial study of his body of work.
>
> Such as Avengers Disassembled.
>
> : You are unable to do this because
>
> : a) You haven't read much of his stuff
>
> Only Daredevil, Ultimate Spider-man, Alias, Avengers, New Avengers, and
> House of M. When will I reach the requisite saturation point where I'm
> actually qualified to speak on the Great Man. 100+ issues isn't enough to
> encompass his body of work, huh?
You made your judgement based on Chaos and Chaos alone. I know, i read
your posts, I was there. You said one misogynist story makes him
misogynist.
You also said you liked Alias, so any argument that you've taken into
account a large body of work in reaching you conclusion that he is
misogynist is a lie.
Nice attempt at slithering, jackass.
> : b) You're so off the wall nuts that's you'd attempt to make a
> : judgement of his whole output based on one story, which is NOT a
> : legitimate application of critical theory, and is NOT cool.
>
> In this case, my critical apparatus is in the service of reviewing that
> one story, which I found lacking for reasons I specified. I'm not
> required to submit a post-doctoral thesis on his body of work to condemn
> his story, or to condemn him for writing it. His story sucked, and he
> sucks for writing it.
Your statements regarding Bendis himself, based on that story, were off
the wall and totally uncalled for, and you admit don't live up to the
least amount of genuine academic scrutiny. You're just another loud
mouthed internet- idiot.
>
> : >I'm not the one that keeps harping on my academic credentials. I'm
> : >content to let my words speak for themselves.
>
> : You initially presented yourself, and like to think of yourself, it
> : would seem, as an academic interesting in teaching as many people as
> : possible about feminist theory.
>
> When asked what my credentials were, I gave them. I'm sorry they
> threatened you so.
No, you mentioned the fact that you were a teacher LONG before I asked
your credentials. I know, I read your posts.
I asked SPECIFICALLY what you teached, and lo and behold!! it had
nothing to do with what you, the self described teacher, were talking
about! Big fuckin suprise there!
You then said "I'm involved in the active study of feminist...." so and
so, which I'm sure means jack squat, considering such outrageous
statements as "all feminists mustagree with me" and "Disagreeing with
me proves you're all a bunch of conservatives" and so on and so forth.
>
> : I happen to have the academic backround to recognise your bullshit for
> : what it is.
>
> You happen to have a differing critical perspective, which you find so
> shaky you must resort to insults regularly rather than trust your own
> critical thought.
Nonsense, my use of insults has nothing to do with belief that my
theory is shakey. I just plain don't like you.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: > : > So retcons work when you like them, and are to be ignored when you don't,
: > : > right?
: >
: > I'm ignoring all your insults, because I'm a better person than you.
: Watch your attributions, I never said that.
Yes, I did, I haven't forgotten.
: > Busiek isn't writing her now. Until continuity actively updates the last
: > story, the last story is the one we have to go on.
: Nonsense, Avengers as a whole is a group of stories under the same
: label. Each individual one is evaluated on its own merits.
And that same label can't be looked at as a whole? You're contradicting
yourself sentence by sentence.
: > Hadn't we decided that comics are not literature already?
: I asked you to define literature, you were unable to do so.
: Why do you make the assumption that critical theory only refers to
: "literature?" I never made any such assumption. Critical theory
: applies to any form of artistic expression.
I'm not the one bandying about the term literature, that's you.
: And now you
: > think they are? You're arguing three sides of every fence we come across.
: Nonsense, those are two completly unrelated arguments, but you're an
: illogical person, and mix everything together.
Mirror. Glue.
: > Retcons do change the meaning of what went before.
: What they do not do is change the previous story. A critical reading
: of the previous story is still the same, still refective of the context
: of the time, and the creators... unless one goes by the shallowest
: "geek" reading, which is as far from intelligent or academic as
: possible.
Your concepts of intelligence and academia continue to be of interest.
: > I also insist on posting in racmu, strangely enough, as if I'm aware of
: > which comics I'm talking about.
: Yet you prefer to unapoligetically use the wrong terminology every
: time, and you claim to be using something approaching intellectual
: criqique. Like I said, you're the lowest brow geek, using the lowest
: brow reading methods. Nowhere near a true academic.
And so what? Why does that matter in this debate? I don't claim to have
more authority than anyone here.
: > I don't see the relevance of the distinction in this Marvel super-hero
: > comics forum. Which genre I'm discussing is a given, but it doesn't
: > change the serial nature of the medium.
: Retcons are NOT an element of comics, or even superhero comics, they
: are an element of corporate owned long running superhero comics, and
: say nothing of the serial nature of the medium itself.
You can pile on 500 qualifications if you want, and it won't change the
fact that comic-book writer Roy Thomas invented the term when talking
about comic-books. Period. 'Nuff said. Your distinctions aren't relevant
to this discussion, as I'm not talking about anime' or independent comics
or what Jill Thompson is up to or anything off-topic for this group.
: > That is not what it only applies to. Images are not the only subject
: > matter open to feminist critique. Ideas, practices, behaviours, people,
: > laws, institutions and the whole of society itself, in all its parts and
: > numerous details,
: but not the individual!
Why not? Ibsen's an individual, and he is widely decried as a sexist
author. He still manages to be Ibsen, though, and his work has survived
(perhaps even been enhanced by) such critiques.
: are also valid topics. Your understanding of feminism
: > is as flawed, and biased, as ever I see.
: I was referring to feminist critiques of art, you know, what you were
: doing. It cannot be used to infer the individual's personality or
: perspective. Feminism is about SOCIETY's beliefs regarding women, not
: individuals.
Feminism is about activism in the goal of gender equality, and when
individuals are shown to be impeding that goal, they are legitimately so
identified by the theory.
: > Only Daredevil, Ultimate Spider-man, Alias, Avengers, New Avengers, and
: > House of M. When will I reach the requisite saturation point where I'm
: > actually qualified to speak on the Great Man. 100+ issues isn't enough to
: > encompass his body of work, huh?
: You made your judgement based on Chaos and Chaos alone. I know, i read
: your posts, I was there. You said one misogynist story makes him
: misogynist.
It certainly caused me to call into question all his other works, which
do indeed make statements about women and their place in society.
: You also said you liked Alias, so any argument that you've taken into
: account a large body of work in reaching you conclusion that he is
: misogynist is a lie.
Alias was an enjoyable story. That doesn't make it perfect or immune from
further criticism. I have actually specified what is problematic from a
feminist perspective about Jessica Jones, however, and so has SRS and
several other critics of Bendis and his MarySues. The sexist elements in
Alias weren't a deal-breaker for me, as they were in Chaos, but then
Jessica was a loser Bendis created, and Wanda was someone he had to
sully into being the kind of loser he prefers to write.
He's limited as an author. He didn't seem to be so at first. But now his
limitations are growing increasingly evident. And some of them are due to
sexism.
: Nice attempt at slithering, jackass.
Who am I, Severus Snape?
: > In this case, my critical apparatus is in the service of reviewing that
: > one story, which I found lacking for reasons I specified. I'm not
: > required to submit a post-doctoral thesis on his body of work to condemn
: > his story, or to condemn him for writing it. His story sucked, and he
: > sucks for writing it.
: Your statements regarding Bendis himself, based on that story, were off
: the wall and totally uncalled for, and you admit don't live up to the
: least amount of genuine academic scrutiny. You're just another loud
: mouthed internet- idiot.
I know it hurt your feelings when I slammed your idol, but I still don't
care.
: > When asked what my credentials were, I gave them. I'm sorry they
: > threatened you so.
: No, you mentioned the fact that you were a teacher LONG before I asked
: your credentials. I know, I read your posts.
But when did Jon ask?
: I asked SPECIFICALLY what you teached, and lo and behold!! it had
: nothing to do with what you, the self described teacher, were talking
: about! Big fuckin suprise there!
What do you think I teach?
: You then said "I'm involved in the active study of feminist...." so and
: so, which I'm sure means jack squat, considering such outrageous
: statements as "all feminists mustagree with me" and "Disagreeing with
: me proves you're all a bunch of conservatives" and so on and so forth.
The conservative nature of this newsgroup vis a vis feminism has been
proven.
: > You happen to have a differing critical perspective, which you find so
: > shaky you must resort to insults regularly rather than trust your own
: > critical thought.
: Nonsense, my use of insults has nothing to do with belief that my
: theory is shakey. I just plain don't like you.
I don't think it's a belief. I think it's a fear. Your insecurity is
evident.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> : > That is not what it only applies to. Images are not the only subject
> : > matter open to feminist critique. Ideas, practices, behaviours, people,
> : > laws, institutions and the whole of society itself, in all its parts and
> : > numerous details,
>
> : but not the individual!
>
> Why not? Ibsen's an individual, and he is widely decried as a sexist
> author. He still manages to be Ibsen, though, and his work has survived
> (perhaps even been enhanced by) such critiques.
Because an in depth look at an author is a auteurial critique, not a
feminist one.
A feminsit critique looks at society's assumptions about women. An
individual story can easily, conscously or unconsocusly, reproduce
society's stereoetypes or beliefs without any particular misogyny or
agenda on the part of an author, especially where its a story where
WHAT IS DEPICTED IS SHOWN AS BAD, which is apparently your excuse for
Elektra, and you have none for Phoenix.
Your "another writer changed it" statement is not valid, and Morrison
had a line stating it was Jean (Germ Free generation, when she first
manifests the Phoenix, before you ask), so even your bady critical
criteria don't work.
>
> : are also valid topics. Your understanding of feminism
> : > is as flawed, and biased, as ever I see.
>
> : I was referring to feminist critiques of art, you know, what you were
> : doing. It cannot be used to infer the individual's personality or
> : perspective. Feminism is about SOCIETY's beliefs regarding women, not
> : individuals.
>
> Feminism is about activism in the goal of gender equality, and when
> individuals are shown to be impeding that goal, they are legitimately so
> identified by the theory.
No, only their arguments or beliefs or theories are legitimate fodder,
attacks on themselves as persons are not.
(Notice the hypocricy when Shawn asks "Stop attacking me as a person,
attack my ideas" time and again, but turns around and attacks Bendis as
a person behind his back? It's tiring how many times I use the word
hypocrite to describe him)
>
> : > Only Daredevil, Ultimate Spider-man, Alias, Avengers, New Avengers, and
> : > House of M. When will I reach the requisite saturation point where I'm
> : > actually qualified to speak on the Great Man. 100+ issues isn't enough to
> : > encompass his body of work, huh?
>
> : You made your judgement based on Chaos and Chaos alone. I know, i read
> : your posts, I was there. You said one misogynist story makes him
> : misogynist.
>
> It certainly caused me to call into question all his other works, which
> do indeed make statements about women and their place in society.
Yes, one of them had a woman pregenent for 12 issues! For shame! (I
heard she gives birth in Pulse issue 11, if I'm remembering correctly)
And she had trouble fending off a villian's attack when she was in late
term pregenency!!!
If you're trying to not sound crazy, Shawn, your doing a bad job of it.
Sidenote: Christopher Priest's Casper Cole stories were largly about
Casper's concern for his unborn child, it was his primary motivation.
And it was highly inspired by on Lone Wolf and Cub, a similar father
and son story.
But when a woman is in that role, some nut with an agenda likes to
shout Sexism!
>
> : You also said you liked Alias, so any argument that you've taken into
> : account a large body of work in reaching you conclusion that he is
> : misogynist is a lie.
>
> Alias was an enjoyable story. That doesn't make it perfect or immune from
> further criticism. I have actually specified what is problematic from a
> feminist perspective about Jessica Jones, however, and so has SRS
SRS said she was defiled and no longer a valid hero, because she
succomed to mind control, which every single earth based hero and
villian in the Marvel Universe has succombed to at one point or another
(I'm not even exaggerating here. Honest, I'm not)
Thank you for reminding me.
SRS then said some bizarre analogy about surgary to restore virginity
being unchristian, which was so odd it puts him in the nut category.
and
> several other critics of Bendis and his MarySues. The sexist elements in
> Alias weren't a deal-breaker for me,
You made them up after you disliked Chaos. And a Mary Sue, by
definition, would be anything but Sexist, which is why you are once
again HYPOCRITICAL AND NOT MAKING A BLOODY BIT OF SENSE.
as they were in Chaos, but then
> Jessica was a loser Bendis created, and Wanda was someone he had to
> sully into being the kind of loser he prefers to write.
Actually, I don't see any particular interest in writing Wanda at all,
which is why she gets so little focus.
I'm sure you'll ignore how he turned Warbird into the Marvel Universe's
Wonder Woman in the last House of M, cause he's a SEXIST MISOGYNIST
BRUTE.
>
> He's limited as an author.
That's funny from a guy who likes to ask "Where's the fight scene?"
>He didn't seem to be so at first.
That's funny from a guy who loves Claremont, the guy who's idea of
showing emotion is thought bubbles with bad, bad, soap opera dialogue.
But now his
> limitations are growing increasingly evident. And some of them are due to
> sexism.
No they are not.
>
> : > When asked what my credentials were, I gave them. I'm sorry they
> : > threatened you so.
>
> : No, you mentioned the fact that you were a teacher LONG before I asked
> : your credentials. I know, I read your posts.
>
> But when did Jon ask?
No idea. First time I saw you mention it was "I'm a teacher, so I'm
patient" "I'm a teacher, so I want to educate" and so on.
>
> : I asked SPECIFICALLY what you teached, and lo and behold!! it had
> : nothing to do with what you, the self described teacher, were talking
> : about! Big fuckin suprise there!
>
> What do you think I teach?
You said history.
>
> : You then said "I'm involved in the active study of feminist...." so and
> : so, which I'm sure means jack squat, considering such outrageous
> : statements as "all feminists mustagree with me" and "Disagreeing with
> : me proves you're all a bunch of conservatives" and so on and so forth.
>
> The conservative nature of this newsgroup vis a vis feminism has been
> proven.
WOW. The fact that your very definition of feminism is in question has
also been proven.
I think we've also proven you really don't understand the difference
between a conservative and liberal. Hint, it's not who does or does
not agree with your awful, awful, critical approach.
>
> : > You happen to have a differing critical perspective, which you find so
> : > shaky you must resort to insults regularly rather than trust your own
> : > critical thought.
>
> : Nonsense, my use of insults has nothing to do with belief that my
> : theory is shakey. I just plain don't like you.
>
> I don't think it's a belief. I think it's a fear. Your insecurity is
> evident.
Must be, couldn't be I just find your stupidity offensive in and of
itself.
Shawn H
: A feminsit critique looks at society's assumptions about women. An
I thought it looked at images that might be construed as sexist.
: individual story can easily, conscously or unconsocusly, reproduce
: society's stereoetypes or beliefs without any particular misogyny or
: agenda on the part of an author, especially where its a story where
The author is not exempt due to ignorance of what he's perpetuating,
knowingly or unknowingly. If it's not acceptable, he needs to know about
it.
: WHAT IS DEPICTED IS SHOWN AS BAD, which is apparently your excuse for
: Elektra, and you have none for Phoenix.
I've been very clear on what I thought was shown and not shown in Elektra.
Your broad statements do not reflect our discussion.
: Your "another writer changed it" statement is not valid, and Morrison
: had a line stating it was Jean (Germ Free generation, when she first
: manifests the Phoenix, before you ask), so even your bady critical
: criteria don't work.
You mean Wolverine's line? Deeply open to interpretation, that one.
BTW, what's a bady critical criteria?
Here's a line I have about Morrison's work with Jean, from back in that
day:
from Marc-Oliver Frisch on Sept. 12, 2002
-- NEW X-MEN #128-130
The Fantomex storyline, August to October 2002
"In terms of subplots, we get a continuation of the Jean/ Phoenix question, in
which the entire confusing history of the matter is streamlined in a few panels,
without anything established previously being contradicted. Meanwhile, the
only other two X-Men we see in this arc besides Xavier and Jean are Cyclops
and Emma Frost, as we see Cyclops turn to Emma for help in the light of his
estrangement from his wife."
Without contradicting established history, he added to it. That's a good
retcon.
: > Feminism is about activism in the goal of gender equality, and when
: > individuals are shown to be impeding that goal, they are legitimately so
: > identified by the theory.
: No, only their arguments or beliefs or theories are legitimate fodder,
: attacks on themselves as persons are not.
Attacks on their public statements are not personal attacks.
: (Notice the hypocricy when Shawn asks "Stop attacking me as a person,
: attack my ideas" time and again, but turns around and attacks Bendis as
: a person behind his back? It's tiring how many times I use the word
: hypocrite to describe him)
I'm not discussing his personal life, I'm discussing his work.
: > It certainly caused me to call into question all his other works, which
: > do indeed make statements about women and their place in society.
: Yes, one of them had a woman pregenent for 12 issues! For shame! (I
: heard she gives birth in Pulse issue 11, if I'm remembering correctly)
When will that be out, 2007?
: And she had trouble fending off a villian's attack when she was in late
: term pregenency!!!
She had no trouble, she fended it. My problem was with her rage being
explained by her pregnancy, rather than just by being attacked. I'd like to
see her think about something else than the baby.
: If you're trying to not sound crazy, Shawn, your doing a bad job of it.
Personal attack, not an argument.
: Sidenote: Christopher Priest's Casper Cole stories were largly about
: Casper's concern for his unborn child, it was his primary motivation.
: And it was highly inspired by on Lone Wolf and Cub, a similar father
: and son story.
How refreshing to hear about a father being worried about his child. But,
then, Priest is a consistently thoughtful writer and the creator of the
only tolerable Disassembled tie-in.
: But when a woman is in that role, some nut with an agenda likes to
: shout Sexism!
When she behaves as Wanda did, it is.
: SRS said she was defiled and no longer a valid hero, because she
: succomed to mind control, which every single earth based hero and
: villian in the Marvel Universe has succombed to at one point or another
: (I'm not even exaggerating here. Honest, I'm not)
SRS has his own concerns, as I have mine. He gave up on Jessica as well as
Wanda, while I still see some hope for Jessica.
: > several other critics of Bendis and his MarySues. The sexist elements in
: > Alias weren't a deal-breaker for me,
: You made them up after you disliked Chaos. And a Mary Sue, by
: definition, would be anything but Sexist, which is why you are once
: again HYPOCRITICAL AND NOT MAKING A BLOODY BIT OF SENSE.
A MarySue, by no definition I know, denies sexism. In fact, the
wish-fulfillment nature of the construct often leads to extreme sexism.
Just because the woman gets everything (the author thinks) she wants
doesn't make that depiction necessarily a positive or progressive one.
Bendis' dream of Jessica marrying captain america was as traditional and
romance-novel as it comes.
: > Jessica was a loser Bendis created, and Wanda was someone he had to
: > sully into being the kind of loser he prefers to write.
: Actually, I don't see any particular interest in writing Wanda at all,
: which is why she gets so little focus.
And yet how is that not a problem for you as a reader? She's the reason the
story exists, yet she barely appears in it? Doesn't ring any bells at all?
: I'm sure you'll ignore how he turned Warbird into the Marvel Universe's
: Wonder Woman in the last House of M, cause he's a SEXIST MISOGYNIST
: BRUTE.
We'll see how I feel about it once I read it.
: > He's limited as an author.
: That's funny from a guy who likes to ask "Where's the fight scene?"
I wonder why you're so quick to disparage a medium you still read just as I
do.
: >He didn't seem to be so at first.
: That's funny from a guy who loves Claremont, the guy who's idea of
: showing emotion is thought bubbles with bad, bad, soap opera dialogue.
I love soap opera dialogue.
: But now his
: > limitations are growing increasingly evident. And some of them are due to
: > sexism.
: No they are not.
Oh, please. At least try.
: > : I asked SPECIFICALLY what you teached, and lo and behold!! it had
: > : nothing to do with what you, the self described teacher, were talking
: > : about! Big fuckin suprise there!
: >
: > What do you think I teach?
: You said history.
And feminist theory has no relevance to such study? You're unaware of the
role its played in re-interpreting the canon of diverse, interdisciplinary
fields since at least the 1980s?
: > The conservative nature of this newsgroup vis a vis feminism has been
: > proven.
: WOW. The fact that your very definition of feminism is in question has
: also been proven.
By conservatives? Hardly. What's been shown, by you especially, is a
complete lack of understanding of the field or its goals.
: I think we've also proven you really don't understand the difference
: between a conservative and liberal. Hint, it's not who does or does
: not agree with your awful, awful, critical approach.
It might be who understands it, though.
: > I don't think it's a belief. I think it's a fear. Your insecurity is
: > evident.
: Must be, couldn't be I just find your stupidity offensive in and of
: itself.
No, because if that were true, you wouldn't keep responding to everything I
say.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
>
> "In terms of subplots, we get a continuation of the Jean/ Phoenix question, in
> which the entire confusing history of the matter is streamlined in a few panels,
> without anything established previously being contradicted. Meanwhile, the
> only other two X-Men we see in this arc besides Xavier and Jean are Cyclops
> and Emma Frost, as we see Cyclops turn to Emma for help in the light of his
> estrangement from his wife."
>
> Without contradicting established history, he added to it. That's a good
> retcon.
What that means is he retconned the past with Jean without actually
saying in detail that was what he was doing, so continuity morons like
you would be appeased.
And I don't see how Wolverine's line is up for interpretation, what do
you think he meant, then?
And, for that matter, if you think Morrison "added to history" without
altering it, what exactly do you think he added? I see absolutly
nothing added by Wolverine's line, and only something removed.
> A MarySue, by no definition I know, denies sexism. In fact, the
> wish-fulfillment nature of the construct often leads to extreme sexism.
A Mary Sue traditionally features a woman who's better than everyone
who solves everyone's problems and who a main character falls in love
with.
I'd love to hear how you think a woman who's better than everyone and
who the main character falls in love with is sexist.
Is being smart and hyper competent sexist? Is solving everyone's
problems sexist? Or is a man falling in love with you sexist? Or is
falling in love with a man sexist?
JFW Richards
A Mary Sue is a traditional feature of badly written fan fic where a
character is there to represent the idealised form of the author. They
can be either male or female.
JFWR
Ken_from_Chicago
scott34494 wrote:
> Shawn H wrote:
>
> >
> > "In terms of subplots, we get a continuation of the Jean/ Phoenix question, in
> > which the entire confusing history of the matter is streamlined in a few panels,
> > without anything established previously being contradicted. Meanwhile, the
> > only other two X-Men we see in this arc besides Xavier and Jean are Cyclops
> > and Emma Frost, as we see Cyclops turn to Emma for help in the light of his
> > estrangement from his wife."
> >
> > Without contradicting established history, he added to it. That's a good
> > retcon.
>
> What that means is he retconned the past with Jean without actually
> saying in detail that was what he was doing, so continuity morons like
> you would be appeased.
>
> And I don't see how Wolverine's line is up for interpretation, what do
> you think he meant, then?
>
> And, for that matter, if you think Morrison "added to history" without
> altering it, what exactly do you think he added? I see absolutly
> nothing added by Wolverine's line, and only something removed.
I agree, an addition is an alteration.
Yet where did Shawn say Morrison did not "alter" history?
I saw Shawn say--twice--that Morrison did not "contradict" history.
> > A MarySue, by no definition I know, denies sexism. In fact, the
> > wish-fulfillment nature of the construct often leads to extreme sexism.
>
> A Mary Sue traditionally features a woman who's better than everyone
> who solves everyone's problems and who a main character falls in love
> with.
>
> I'd love to hear how you think a woman who's better than everyone and
> who the main character falls in love with is sexist.
>
> Is being smart and hyper competent sexist?
In a word: Yes.
In 3 words: It can be.
Is solving everyone's
> problems sexist? Or is a man falling in love with you sexist? Or is
> falling in love with a man sexist?
Regardless of whether an individual character trait is ostensibly
"positive" or "negative", it is the ascribing of said trait to people
MERELY because of their gender then it's the ascribing of it that's
sexist.
Traditional examples:
Saying that men are smarter and hyper competent at math, science,
business, the military, mechanics, electronics, computers while women
are smarter and hyper competent at romance, relationships, diplomacy,
fashion, interior decorating, parenting MERELY because of their gender
is sexist, regardless of the positivity of being hyper competent at the
above traits.
-- Ken from Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney
He doesn't state it outright, no, but there are implications that can be
read that way. I think it's a good way to handle things - leave the
specifics vague enough for readers to interpret it how they want to.
scott34494
Ken_from_Chicago wrote:
> scott34494 wrote:
> > Shawn H wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "In terms of subplots, we get a continuation of the Jean/ Phoenix question, in
> > > which the entire confusing history of the matter is streamlined in a few panels,
> > > without anything established previously being contradicted. Meanwhile, the
> > > only other two X-Men we see in this arc besides Xavier and Jean are Cyclops
> > > and Emma Frost, as we see Cyclops turn to Emma for help in the light of his
> > > estrangement from his wife."
> > >
> > > Without contradicting established history, he added to it. That's a good
> > > retcon.
> >
> > What that means is he retconned the past with Jean without actually
> > saying in detail that was what he was doing, so continuity morons like
> > you would be appeased.
> >
> > And I don't see how Wolverine's line is up for interpretation, what do
> > you think he meant, then?
> >
> > And, for that matter, if you think Morrison "added to history" without
> > altering it, what exactly do you think he added? I see absolutly
> > nothing added by Wolverine's line, and only something removed.
>
> I agree, an addition is an alteration.
>
> Yet where did Shawn say Morrison did not "alter" history?
>
> I saw Shawn say--twice--that Morrison did not "contradict" history.
Altering history with no in story explanation is, by its very
definition, a contradiciton, is it not?
scott34494
Wellllllllllll, Mary Sue's are reflections of an author's wishes. They
are wish fullfillment fantasies by the author.
So you're saying a woman is likely to write a Mary Sue with her cooking
and cleaning for the boys, that this is what women do when they sit
down and write a fantasy for themself?
Seems to be that Mary Sues be default are going to be empowerment
fantasies.
>
> Traditional examples:
>
> Saying that men are smarter and hyper competent at math, science,
> business, the military, mechanics, electronics, computers while women
> are smarter and hyper competent at romance, relationships, diplomacy,
> fashion, interior decorating, parenting MERELY because of their gender
> is sexist, regardless of the positivity of being hyper competent at the
> above traits.
Why the hell would a Mary Sue, who is a wish fullfullment fantasy, by
competent MERELY because of her gender?
That's the problem with Shawn, all he sees is gender everywhere.
Shawn H
: > Regardless of whether an individual character trait is ostensibly
: > "positive" or "negative", it is the ascribing of said trait to people
: > MERELY because of their gender then it's the ascribing of it that's
: > sexist.
: Wellllllllllll, Mary Sue's are reflections of an author's wishes. They
: are wish fullfillment fantasies by the author.
: So you're saying a woman is likely to write a Mary Sue with her cooking
: and cleaning for the boys, that this is what women do when they sit
: down and write a fantasy for themself?
Who says it's women who are writing the MarySues?
: Seems to be that Mary Sues be default are going to be empowerment
: fantasies.
Maybe you should actually read some and see if that holds up.
: Why the hell would a Mary Sue, who is a wish fullfullment fantasy, by
: competent MERELY because of her gender?
You'll have to ask the author.
: That's the problem with Shawn, all he sees is gender everywhere.
And the problem with you is you don't see it right in front of your face.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Ken_from_Chicago wrote:
: >
: > I agree, an addition is an alteration.
: >
: > Yet where did Shawn say Morrison did not "alter" history?
: >
: > I saw Shawn say--twice--that Morrison did not "contradict" history.
: Altering history with no in story explanation is, by its very
: definition, a contradiciton, is it not?
Not if it makes sense. Revealing a new facet isn't the same as undoing
the old understanding. Grant's a master of this.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: > Without contradicting established history, he added to it. That's a good
: > retcon.
: What that means is he retconned the past with Jean without actually
: saying in detail that was what he was doing, so continuity morons like
: you would be appeased.
Exactly. He did a good job. And he left things open to interpretation,
not providing the final conclusions you seem to leap to.
: And I don't see how Wolverine's line is up for interpretation, what do
: you think he meant, then?
Since when have Wolverine's words been synonymous with truth? What he
believes isn't the same thing as what happened.
: And, for that matter, if you think Morrison "added to history" without
: altering it, what exactly do you think he added? I see absolutly
: nothing added by Wolverine's line, and only something removed.
What he added (really, expanded upon, as Claremont had already laid the
groundwork at the conclusion of Maddy Pryor's life) was the idea that
whatever version of Jean is presently corporeal (including her daughter),
the Phoenix will some day make contact. Claremont's Phoenix was a primal
universal force that answered Jean's call. Morrison's Phoenix is a
scourge of corruption that has many agents throughout the continuum, one
of whom is always Jean.
: > A MarySue, by no definition I know, denies sexism. In fact, the
: > wish-fulfillment nature of the construct often leads to extreme sexism.
: A Mary Sue traditionally features a woman who's better than everyone
: who solves everyone's problems and who a main character falls in love
: with.
It's not always a woman. There's sexist thing right there, bingo.
: I'd love to hear how you think a woman who's better than everyone and
: who the main character falls in love with is sexist.
It depends on what she does, doesn't? If solving everyone's problems
involves baking cookies and sending them off to school and making sure
they go for that promotion after all and in most ways signifying a
nuturing help-meet rather than say being a scientist, adventurer or
independent spirit, then it's a traditionalist fantasy, not an
enlightened one.
: Is being smart and hyper competent sexist? Is solving everyone's
: problems sexist? Or is a man falling in love with you sexist? Or is
: falling in love with a man sexist?
Your tendency is always to simplify this issue into strawman territory.
Even if we accept the small territory you accord feminism, that it is
only concerned with societal images of feminity which are stereotypes,
that's all you need to answer your question about a particular Mary Sue.
Does she enact those stereotypes, or does she stand for different, more
progressive images?
Someone as versed in literary theory as yourself should be able to answer
those questions without just assuming that every "problem-solving" woman
is automatically an empowered one.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: > force, but did he undo the difference between her two bodies?
: He doesn't state it outright, no, but there are implications that can be
: read that way. I think it's a good way to handle things - leave the
: specifics vague enough for readers to interpret it how they want to.
Agreed. Another plus was that he seemed to have the big picture of all
aspects of continuity, rather than just following the most recent or his
own favorite little branches of it. Or trying for that leaden "back to
basics" approach, as if readers were still the same as they were in 1963.
Shawn H.
Steven R. Stahl
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[snip
> Alias was an enjoyable story. That doesn't make it perfect or immune from
> further criticism. I have actually specified what is problematic from a
> feminist perspective about Jessica Jones, however, and so has SRS and
> several other critics of Bendis and his MarySues. The sexist elements in
> Alias weren't a deal-breaker for me, as they were in Chaos, but then
> Jessica was a loser Bendis created, and Wanda was someone he had to
> sully into being the kind of loser he prefers to write.
BTW, I bought Vol. 4 of ALIAS yesterday. My local comics retailer
ordered it recently when I asked, and ordered the other volumes of
ALIAS too. I should have it read by early next week, weather
permitting. I either walk at least four miles daily, doing puzzles or
reading as I go, or go to the club to work out more vigorously. Sitting
in place for hours at a time is intolerable.
SRS
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: [snip
: > Alias was an enjoyable story. That doesn't make it perfect or immune from
: > further criticism. I have actually specified what is problematic from a
: > feminist perspective about Jessica Jones, however, and so has SRS and
: > several other critics of Bendis and his MarySues. The sexist elements in
: > Alias weren't a deal-breaker for me, as they were in Chaos, but then
: > Jessica was a loser Bendis created, and Wanda was someone he had to
: > sully into being the kind of loser he prefers to write.
: BTW, I bought Vol. 4 of ALIAS yesterday. My local comics retailer
: ordered it recently when I asked, and ordered the other volumes of
: ALIAS too. I should have it read by early next week, weather
: permitting. I either walk at least four miles daily, doing puzzles or
Well, let us know what you think of it.
Shawn H.
Steven R. Stahl
I'm partway through #25 at this point, but I can already say that
ALIAS, Vol. 4, serves as a guide to understanding Bendis's depiction of
Wanda in "Avengers Disassembled": his use of monomania, the idea that
Wanda could be latently insane, Strange's disquisition on her in
AVENGERS #503 (poor, deluded Wanda, chasing all those fantasies,
instead of living in the real world!), and why Bendis found Byrne's WCA
storyline attractive.
The volume also suggests why Bendis chose Warbird (Carol Danvers) as
the celebrated heroine in HOUSE OF M #2: her relationship to Jessica
Jones and/or her own experience with mind control and degradation
(altho' I think AVENGERS #200 is more of a sexist, painfully warped
romance story than an example of misogynistic writing).
SRS
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: I'm partway through #25 at this point, but I can already say that
: ALIAS, Vol. 4, serves as a guide to understanding Bendis's depiction of
: Wanda in "Avengers Disassembled":
You can read a lot into ALIAS, if you're so inclined.
In "The Underneath," Jessica Jones has to investigate a fashionable night club
called "The 616" to find J. Jonah Jameson's daughter. When she dresses up to
gain entrance, she feels slutty about it, but pushes on anyway because she has
to.
A few months later, ALIAS became THE PULSE, and SECRET WAR and Bendis' move to
AVENGERS were announced.
Ka-CHING.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com
COMIKADO << http://comikado.blogspot.com
SUPERCRITICAL >> http://supercritic.blogspot.com
Habemus nauseam.
--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]
Shawn H
: Jones and/or her own experience with mind control and degradation
: (altho' I think AVENGERS #200 is more of a sexist, painfully warped
: romance story than an example of misogynistic writing).
It may very well be ignorance in both cases (I always forget who wrote
#200; Conway?), but ignorance is no excuse. Claremont was already writing
much stronger, more self-determined women (in fact had done so with Carol
Danvers herself) and it was just a few years until he pointed out the
problem with #200 in the classic Avengers Annual #10.
One of the links I posted way back wondered why Bendis has turned back the
clock to depictions of women thought better off-abandoned (like those with
traits shared by the villainesses of his Secret War and New Avengers story;
both Lucia von Bardas and Yelena Belova have been horribly disfigured, and
are angry about it). But it seems like for him, the clock never really
moved forward. He's on the same page as every Sean Connery James Bond
movie. He's very in tune with Marvel as far as the presentation of women
... circa 1963.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: A few months later, ALIAS became THE PULSE, and SECRET WAR and Bendis' move to
: AVENGERS were announced.
: Ka-CHING.
Bendis is pretending to be a hooker?
Shawn H.
Steven R. Stahl
Shawn H wrote:
> Steven R. Stahl <syns...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
> : Jones and/or her own experience with mind control and degradation
> : (altho' I think AVENGERS #200 is more of a sexist, painfully warped
> : romance story than an example of misogynistic writing).
>
> It may very well be ignorance in both cases (I always forget who wrote
Web sites list the writers as Shooter and Michelinie, though that could
mean Shooter plotting and Michelinie scripting.
> One of the links I posted way back wondered why Bendis has turned back the
> clock to depictions of women thought better off-abandoned (like those with
> traits shared by the villainesses of his Secret War and New Avengers story;
> both Lucia von Bardas and Yelena Belova have been horribly disfigured, and
> are angry about it). But it seems like for him, the clock never really
> moved forward. He's on the same page as every Sean Connery James Bond
> movie. He's very in tune with Marvel as far as the presentation of women
> ... circa 1963.
Indeed, NEW AVENGERS #6 shouldn't do anything to boost opinions
regarding Bendis's depiction of women. Belova is just a bitchy face,
unless someone is familiar with the (first?) BLACK WIDOW miniseries, as
I am, or other appearances. Agent Hill is an officious ass-coverer. But
then, Bendis does just as bad a job with men. The writers of superhero
porn depict their wielders of mind control more realistically than
Bendis depicts Killgrave, but then he's insane, so characterization is
irrelevant. Right? On to ALIAS:
My reaction to Vol. 4 of ALIAS was much different than that of, say,
commenters on AMAZON.COM (see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785111670/qid=1119895517/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-5029422-4706306?v=glance&s=books
), but then, I was reading the book for the purpose of analysis.
The major problem I see in this volume of ALIAS is the cartoonishness
of the characterization. While Jessica Jones is supposed to be a
truer-to-life character than Marvel's other paranormals, that realism
is absent from the other supporting characters. Scott Lang, Luke Cage,
and Clay Quartermain (S.H.I.E.L.D.) are attracted to her for no
apparent reason other than Bendis finding the attraction convenient,
and in spite of, as one Amazon.com commenter notes, "her demeanor and
her self-loathing." Scott Lang's attraction to her is especially odd,
given that he'd be looking for a potential mother for Cassie.
The cartoonishness is also evident in the depiction of Killgrave. He is
supposedly in a virtually continuous manic state. Bendis's reasoning
seems to be that if he's manic (insane), then his actions don't have to
make sense on any level. He can act randomly and do obviously senseless
things, with insanity being the blanket justification. The same
reasoning appears to have been applied to Wanda in "Avengers
Disassembled" and HOUSE OF M: latent insanity that transforms into
constant mania regarding the twins, despite the obvious lack of realism
and resulting plot incoherence. Having characters act randomly is as
destructive to plot coherence as anything else a writer could do.
The poor characterization and absence of critical self-review are both
evident in ALIAS #28. While Jessica is supposed to be triumphing over
Killgrave's domination of her, the actual content, viewed critically,
is nothing of the sort. In the situation shown, the Avengers can take
out Killgrave at will. Iron Man and the Vision aren't vulnerable to
Killgrave's power (Thor shouldn't be), and the other Avengers had
plenty of time to protect themselves (see
http://www.cf.ac.uk/biosi/staff/jacob/teaching/sensory/pherom.html ).
Jessica doesn't *need* to do anything at all to be freed from
Killgrave's control. What she does is ridiculous: invoke a "psychic
defense trigger" Jean Grey implanted in her mind. The trigger isn't
activated by the pheromones themselves, Killgrave's orders to her, or
Killgrave's evil actions. In fact, the trigger isn't automatically
activated by anything. Jessica has to tell herself to break Killgrave's
control. The trigger might as well not exist, except that Bendis needed
to justify, somehow, Jessica's breakout moment, given Killgrave's
inexplicably potent power.
Given the "trigger" plot device, Jessica's lack of reaction to
Killgrave's manipulation of the civilians, etc., Jessica's triumphal
moment is much more akin to someone pointing out to a docile, broken
slave that if there's no one watching her, she can leave the house.
"You--You mean I can just open the door and walk out?! Wow! I hadn't
realized--" If Bendis isn't giving the readers a cow, he's giving them
something far less than an actual heroine.
There's more to say about ALIAS, certainly, but that will have to wait
until Tuesday or Wednesday.
SRS
~consul
And people complain about the poor reasearch writers do ...
Jeremy Henderson
Pretending, hell. He's a talented writer who's doing substandard work
on a bunch of high profile (and presumably high paying) gigs.
I'd say that makes him a whore.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> He's very in tune with Marvel as far as the presentation of women
> ... circa 1963.
Yeah, he had a chick get pregnent and everything!
Tony
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:d9d0vo$81v$3...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> > ~consul <con...@invaliddolphins-cove.com> wrote:
> > : Shawn H wrote:
> > : > ~consul <con...@invaliddolphins-cove.com> wrote:
> > : > : Shawn H wrote:
> > : > : > I do indeed! Yes, please call him up. If he can help She-Hulk, one
> of the
> > : > : > victims, why can't he help the source as well?
> > : > : Doc Samson worked with her brother, Pietro before in X-Factor.
> Excellent talking heads
> > : > : issue. Especially great characterization and motivation discussions
> for Pietro.
> > : > From the Peter David days?
> >
> > : Dah.
> >
> > Those were the good old days. That was one X-men re-arrangement (where
> each
> > book got its own set of characters) that worked pretty well, for awhile. >
> Right after the whole Maddie Demon Knight thing, right?
>
> Long after. There was a whole period with no X-Men, then X-Tinction Agenda,
> then the Muir Island Saga in between - it was at least 2 or 3 years.
Shawn H
: On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:02:00 +0000 (UTC), Shawn H
: <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
Is he aware he's doing substandard work, though? Perhaps, given his remit
for those gigs, this is truly the best he's capable of.
Face it, Bendis fans, the man isn't good at everything.
Shawn H.
Steven R. Stahl
Shawn H wrote:
[snip]
> Face it, Bendis fans, the man isn't good at everything.
Or, phrased differently: What is he good at? More on ALIAS:
Today's piece on Vol. 4 of ALIAS: Problems with the handling of
Killgrave
The material in ALIAS #25 re the "eight months" Jessica spent with
Killgrave as his slave is preposterous. To quote Jessica. "Months
would go by and all he would do is watch TV, eat, and fuck college
students he would grab off the street." And, of course, make Jessica
beg him to fuck her too.
That was *all* he did? For *eight* months?!
Aside from implying that Bendis didn't know the meaning of the phrase
"refractory period," (see
http://en.mimi.hu/sexuality/refractory_period.html ), the quote raises
issues regarding the limits of Killgrave's power. Does he sleep?
Google searches on the phrases "Killgrave asleep," "Killgrave
sleep," and "Killgrave sleeps" came up empty. There's no reason
to believe his power would function while he slept; there is also no
reason to believe his power would free him from the physiological need
for sleep. The subject just isn't mentioned (Jessica does say, re
"mind control shit": "Every day, every night: eight months).
His power, as implicitly defined in ALIAS, would also have required her
to stay close at hand (within visual contact?) continuously for the
eight months. Go out of sight, any significant distance from Killgrave,
and what happens, logically? The exposure to the pheromones stops, she
regains her self-control, and she kills Killgrave (throwing a rock at
him from a distance would suffice, if she didn't want to use a gun).
I don't recall any implied ability to order his subjects to erase
their memories, will themselves to die, or to do mental feats normally
impossible (e.g., have someone who has trouble with math to calculate
Integral 40).
The inability to erase memories would make such a power useless for a
suspense novelist. If the controller's subjects remembered being
controlled and degraded, they'd want revenge, and for someone to
track him down and kill him from a distance would be relatively
trivial. Logically, he should be dead already.
The "eight months" scenario requires one to make so many
implausible assumptions (he's not subject to boredom; tormenting her
would remain interesting after three, four, five months) that the
scenario fails completely.
The sequence with Scott Lang in ALIAS #27 is another problem area, in
that the manipulation of Jessica crosses over into the area of
telepathic control. Asking her "to see him dead" is manipulation of
thought processes, not motor control. Since his power doesn't involve
telepathic control, the Scott Lang sequence doesn't work.
Lastly, there's Jessica's encounter with the Avengers and
Defenders, as recounted in ALIAS #25. While Jessica talked about
somehow mistaking the Scarlet Witch for Daredevil (a bit repeated in
the "Jessica Jones" WHAT IF special), Killgrave also told her,
"Any costume fuck you find along the way-fucking kill them."
Following that order would have meant attacking any hero or heroine she
saw, which covered Wanda as well as the other Avengers, et al.
Mistaking Wanda for Daredevil was an irrelevant detail.
SRS
David Johnston
<syns...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Shawn H wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> Face it, Bendis fans, the man isn't good at everything.
>
>Or, phrased differently: What is he good at? More on ALIAS:
>
>Today's piece on Vol. 4 of ALIAS: Problems with the handling of
>Killgrave
>
>The material in ALIAS #25 re the "eight months" Jessica spent with
>Killgrave as his slave is preposterous. To quote Jessica. "Months
>would go by and all he would do is watch TV, eat, and fuck college
>students he would grab off the street." And, of course, make Jessica
>beg him to fuck her too.
>
>That was *all* he did? For *eight* months?!
>
>Aside from implying that Bendis didn't know the meaning of the phrase
>"refractory period," (see
>http://en.mimi.hu/sexuality/refractory_period.html ), the quote raises
>issues regarding the limits of Killgrave's power. Does he sleep?
Probably. But then most people wouldn't be literal minded enough to
think that Jessica was really saying that Killgrave never urinated for
eight months.
Steven R. Stahl
Well, since all the readers have to go on to rate the believability of
the situation is Jessica's description, the content of that description
has to imply a lot and be accurate. It's reasonable to think that if
Killgrave sleeps, the pheromones stop coming out, and Jessica in no
longer under his control. Never being out of visual contact with
Killgrave for eight months is obviously ridiculous.
What's the point of writing a character as supposedly truer to life if
the characters and situations around her are more ridiculous than the
material being criticized?
SRS