Scarlet Witch Question: If She's So Powerful...

1 view
Skip to first unread message

badth...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 6:13:01 PM6/18/05
to
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?

Fallen

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 6:31:35 PM6/18/05
to
badth...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 7:33:36 PM6/18/05
to

She's also a near omnipotent being that has no control over her powers.

Fallen

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 7:44:45 PM6/18/05
to
scott34494 wrote:

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 7:56:47 PM6/18/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 9:01:22 PM6/18/05
to

<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

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 10:18:58 PM6/18/05
to
Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
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

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 11:35:22 PM6/18/05
to
Dan McEwen wrote:

Eh? How is Wanda's DNA involved if she just summons up some kids from
thin air?

Fallen.

Shawn H

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 11:40:17 PM6/18/05
to
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?

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

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 11:41:14 PM6/18/05
to
Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
: 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

unread,
Jun 18, 2005, 11:43:05 PM6/18/05
to
Mike <woofh...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

: <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

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 3:34:46 AM6/19/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 12:05:22 PM6/19/05
to


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

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 2:28:16 PM6/19/05
to
Because it takes two to make babies. Even God needed Mary to make Jesus.

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

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 6:03:05 PM6/19/05
to

--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

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 8:43:48 PM6/19/05
to
Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in news:42B4E88...@ntlworld.com:

> 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

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 9:24:34 PM6/19/05
to
Dan McEwen wrote:

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

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 11:40:51 PM6/19/05
to
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: 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

unread,
Jun 19, 2005, 11:49:19 PM6/19/05
to
Tony <Tony...@aol.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?<<

: --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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 10:57:51 AM6/20/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 11:36:05 AM6/20/05
to
>>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. <<

--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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 1:01:59 PM6/20/05
to
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: > 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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 1:54:53 PM6/20/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 3:05:32 PM6/20/05
to
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 ... 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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 4:27:54 PM6/20/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 8:14:37 PM6/20/05
to
Shawn:

>>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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 8:21:49 PM6/20/05
to
Scott:

>>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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 8:35:35 PM6/20/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 11:57:27 PM6/20/05
to
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. 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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 11:51:41 PM6/20/05
to
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. 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

unread,
Jun 20, 2005, 11:52:58 PM6/20/05
to
Tony <Tony...@aol.com> wrote:
: 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 7:15:26 AM6/21/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 8:28:12 AM6/21/05
to
Dear Shawn,

Thank you for reprinting my work available here:

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq1.html

Take care.

Sam

scott34494

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 9:07:45 AM6/21/05
to

Shawn H wrote:

> Where's Doctor-Man when you need him? Super-Freud?
>

Don't you mean Doc Sampson?

scott34494

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 9:13:08 AM6/21/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 10:11:57 AM6/21/05
to
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.

: 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 10:18:46 AM6/21/05
to
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 10:14:54 AM6/21/05
to
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.

Shawn H.

Shawn H

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 10:15:41 AM6/21/05
to
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:


: 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 10:52:22 AM6/21/05
to

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.


~~~~
http://www.thecomicblog.com

Shawn H

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 12:12:19 PM6/21/05
to
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.

: 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 1:48:35 PM6/21/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 2:18:52 PM6/21/05
to
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:


: 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 2:17:20 PM6/21/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 4:11:45 PM6/21/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 4:54:06 PM6/21/05
to

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!


------
http://www.thecomicblog.com

Shawn H

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 10:13:29 PM6/21/05
to
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.

: > 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

unread,
Jun 21, 2005, 10:18:34 PM6/21/05
to
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.

: 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

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 1:57:48 PM6/22/05
to
Fallen wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 1:56:29 PM6/22/05
to
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?

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

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 9:44:36 AM6/22/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 11:32:39 AM6/22/05
to
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: 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

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 11:26:07 AM6/22/05
to
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: 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

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 9:48:22 AM6/22/05
to

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

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 2:48:58 PM6/22/05
to
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?

Shawn H

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 3:32:00 PM6/22/05
to
~consul <con...@invaliddolphins-cove.com> wrote:
: 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

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 2:50:01 PM6/22/05
to

Doc Samson worked with her brother, Pietro before in X-Factor. Excellent talking heads

issue. Especially great characterization and motivation discussions for Pietro.

~consul

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 4:14:04 PM6/22/05
to

Dah.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we

Shawn H

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 8:50:00 PM6/22/05
to
~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?

Shawn H.

Steven R. Stahl

unread,
Jun 22, 2005, 9:49:41 PM6/22/05