REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 25 February 2001
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - 25 February 2001
http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
================================
Go to http://www.egroups.com/group/x-axis-reviews and click on
"subscribe" to receive the X-Axis by e-mail every week.
------------
This week:
GAMBIT & BISHOP #3 - "That's Stryfe That's What People Say!"
by Scott Lobdell, Joe Pruett, Georges Jeanty, Sean Parsons
and Team X
ULTIMATE X-MEN #3 - "The Tomorrow People, part 3 of 6"
by Mark Millar, Adam Kubert and Art Thibert
UNCANNY X-MEN #381 - "Dad"
by Scott Lobdell, Salvador Larroca, Tim Townsend and Lary Stucker
X-MAN #74 - "Fearful Symmetries, part four"
by Steven Grant and Quique Alcatera
CAPTAIN AMERICA #40 - "Fighting Back"
by Dan Jurgens and Bob Layton
DEATH AND CANDY #2
by Max Andersson and Lars Sjunnesson
THE FALL
by Ed Brubaker and Jason Lutes
------------
GAMBIT & BISHOP continues on its painfully slow meander through
a plot nobody seems to care about. Last issue, you will recall,
our heroes spent the entire story travelling to New Orleans and
squabbling a bit. This issue, they spend the entire story
chatting with Stryfe and squabbling a bit.
It's basically an entire issue of Stryfe explaining his angst
to us. This is a tough one to pull off, bearing in mind that
virtually nobody gives a toss about Stryfe. He is, after all,
one of the dullest major villains in the X-books' pantheon,
with motivations that never made the slightest sense and a
hopelessly convoluted back story.
Lobdell makes a brave attempt to give us a pared back version of
Stryfe's history and put the character's actions in some kind of
sensible context. The emphasis is put squarely on Stryfe's
rejection by Apocalypse after he was exposed by a clone (in a
miniseries several years ago), the idea being that Stryfe was
raised from birth for a particular role and was then cast aside
as worthless when he turned out to be a clone. Everything else
is then explained as all-purpose lashing out at Cable in an
effort to prove himself superior and validate his existence.
Well, okay, that's a reasonably sensible aspect of Stryfe's
character to play up. But it doesn't really explain what the
hell he's doing in this book. Although Stryfe's newly clarified
motivations are perfect fodder for a Cable story, they don't
have anything to do with either of this book's protagonists.
Moreover, the plot relies on Stryfe seeking out the heroes'
help to defend himself against Cable. This makes no sense
whatsoever, partly because there are tons of people Stryfe would
turn to before a couple of second division X-Men, partly
because Stryfe already vastly outpowers Cable, but mainly
because it's so absurdly out of character for Stryfe. I never
thought I'd hear the words "out of character for Stryfe" - it
comes as something of a surprise to realise he actually has
one - but the cowering twerp in this issue is almost impossible
to reconcile with the ranting maniac that Stryfe's generally
been written as.
Georges Jeanty's artwork is looking rather sketchy this issue,
but he does do some excellent backgrounds. He plays up the
dopey comedy routines for Stryfe quite well too, albeit that the
comedy is hopelessly misplaced.
However... we're now halfway through this series. We've got
two characters who don't like one another standing around on
the periphery of a Cable storyline. We seem to have completely
forgotten about the symbiote under Bishop's skin which was
a key plot point at the beginning of the series. We've screwed
up the Witness's continuity yet further for no discernible
reason.
What exactly are we trying to achieve here, and why?
Rating: C
------------
Over in the Ultimate line, ULTIMATE X-MEN is now up to issue
#3 and... well, you know the Mark Millar routine by now.
For all the differences in the individual characters, the real
point of departure between this and the mainstream X-Men is
that Millar is taking a completely different approach from the
last twenty-five years of X-Men comics. Under Claremont, the
X-Men adopted something of a soap opera approach, which was
maintained in the following decade as part of what the editors
presumably saw as a magic formula.
Millar doesn't do soap opera, at least not when he's writing
superheroes. He does action stories. So while his book has
exactly the same starting premise of anti-mutant prejudice and
Xavier and Magneto having different factions, the approach is
jarringly different from what we're used to.
This is all well and good, and in fairness it's not as though
characterisation is absent from Millar's writing. It's just not
a top priority. However, even allowing for the different approach
Millar's taking here, things may be a little out of whack here.
It's become the trite observation for reviewers to make about
Ultimate X-Men, but the characters just aren't very distinctive.
His teenage heroes all share pretty much the same speech patterns,
the same sense of humour, the same attitude. They do have
elements that make them unique, but Millar could really do with
playing up the character side further. Even without turning
into a soap opera, there's plenty of scope to do it, and as it
stands he's writing a team who are blurring into one.
The exceptions, naturally, are Xavier (all-purpose benign
authority figure) and Wolverine. His approach to Wolverine is
an interesting one, since where the Marvel Universe character
simply had a history of slightly dodgy black ops work for a
friendly government, the Ultimate X-Men version is being
positioned as an out and out assassin. It's a foregone
conclusion that he'll be turned into a hero in due course, but
it lays the groundwork for a different approach to the
character.
As for the story, this month the heroes rescue a hostage from
the villains and they have a fight. A hero is seemingly killed
at the end, although all rules of superhero formula say it's
just a cliffhanger and he'll turn out okay. Basically a stock
superhero plot done with a bit more attitude.
The book is an enjoyable read, but my reservations are growing.
The strongest element of this book is the mutant concept, and
that was there already. I don't really want to read a book
where the anti-mutant paranoia is even worse than in the
mainstream Marvel Universe (they've been doing that routine for
years and it's a stripmined area), the characters really need
some work, and the plots are a bit on the obvious side.
It doesn't worry me that, three issues in, Millar has yet to
scratch the surface. What worries me is that I'm not sure he's
even trying; he seems more intent on polishing the surface until
it's all nice and shiny.
Rating: B
------------
Back in the mainstream universe, Scott Lobdell continues to play
to his strengths on UNCANNY X-MEN by giving us our third
consecutive issue to be filed under "Character studies (somewhat
bittersweet)". Not that I'm complaining - this is his forte, and
if we're going to have to tread water until May, we may as well
do it with character pieces.
This issue brings Cyclops back into the book. Eagle eyed readers
may have noticed that the X-Men: The Search for Cyclops miniseries
isn't actually finished yet. This is not Lobdell's fault - the
miniseries is running over a month late and you can't hold up the
core books forever. In any event, this issue doesn't actually
blow the ending of the miniseries. Yes, it establishes that
Cyclops gets returned to normal, but we always knew that was going
to happen. It doesn't tell us how it happened, which is the only
point of tension in the mini. A reasonable compromise.
The story is Scott spending a weekend camping with his estranged
father Corsair, illustrating their strained and distant
relationship and getting them to talk about it. It's a simple
affair, but a 22 page story is about right for this sort of
material. Scott's relationship with his father has never been
given all that much prominence, and Lobdell's interpretation
makes perfect sense.
Some criticism has been made of this issue on the basis that
Scott is presenting himself as the perfect father in comparison
with Corsair, when in fact his track record with Cable wasn't
all that great. I tend to the view that that's the point (Scott
does feel guilty about the state of his relationship with Cable
and he's venting it at Corsair without explaining it openly),
but in any event Scott still has a fair case.
Scott gets a curious redesign from Salvador Larroca this issue.
Apparently he's now Tom Cruise, and purists will doubtless be
distraught to see that he's wearing a costume blatantly
influenced by the film's character design. I think it works,
particularly when this issue doesn't really want to make Scott
look uptight.
This is the sort of issue Lobdell excels at, and while it's
perhaps a bit saccharine for some tastes, I'm always happy to see
one of these stories.
Rating: A-
------------
X-MAN rounds off the Fearful Symmetries storyline this issue,
leaving us with one issue to go before cancellation.
Ariel Olivetti is absent this issue for some reason, and his
replacement is one Quique Alcatera, who I've never heard of.
His style is much more to my tastes that Olivetti, who I still
find rather awkward. Alcatera does a great rendition of the
Brilliant City, and an excellent double-page spread near the end
showing the higher-level alternate worlds. Unfortunately he
seems to be drawing Nate about ten years too old, but I can live
with that given the quality of the rest of his work.
The point of this issue is to take us to the Brilliant City and
establish that it isn't perfect after all. Rather, it's just
the highest world in its particular part of the spiral. The
storyline is much stronger when it's focusing on this aspect -
it's a shame the book felt the need to throw away two issues
homaging the Authority when it could have been developing its
themes, since they're rather interesting.
The Brilliant City is fairly obviously intended to evoke Heaven.
That means that you can read the inhabitants' intolerance of
anything below them as a criticism of religious zealotry, as
well as seeing the revelation of higher worlds as a suggestion
that this whole religion thing is based on a false premise
anyway. Regular readers will know that this sort of thing appeals
greatly to my empty atheist soul. In any event, it works as a
straightforward story without Grant needing to hit you over the
head with his symbolism.
You could argue that Grant is cheating a bit by writing the
Brilliant City as such a completely intolerant and unsympathetic
group of people, which isn't really consistent with having set
them up as the epitomy of perfection. I'm happy to let that
slide as being part of the point, although since the Brilliant
City has been unsympathetic throughout, it might have been nice
to see a bit more of the place in the course of this storyline
so as to flesh them out a bit. On the other hand, perhaps that
would just detract from the attempt to present them as ersatz
angels.
I've been rather disappointed with this storyline so far, and
I still wish it had got to some of this stuff earlier on. Still,
this is a strong ending.
Rating: A-
------------
As regular readers may be aware, I absolutely despise CAPTAIN
AMERICA as a character. I think he has about as much to offer
to the twenty-first century as the steam railroad. This
review of issue #40 is not going to be a scathing attack on the
character's very existence, since there's more than enough to
attack even if you start from the premise that the character
is a good idea; but best to have the cards on the table from the
outset.
Irrespective of what you think of the character, Dan Jurgens'
ultra-simplistic take on the book seems wildly wrongheaded (not
to mention completely out of kilter with what the Quesada/Jemas
regime is trying to do to the Marvel line). Supporters of the
character are usually keen to stress that the character doesn't
have to be a flagwaving propaganda tool, but Jurgens evidently
disagrees with them. There's nothing in this issue quite as
appalling as the Maximum Security issue (in which Cap allowed
a villain to die and then delivered a monologue about how that
was okay, because he'd preserved the Statue of Liberty as a
result), but these things are relative.
The book is taking on a bizarrely flagwaving tone of late.
It's the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a Silver Age
parody, not something you can imagine a publisher being happy to
put out in this decade. Since I don't credit Jurgens with the
wit to be doing this as a clever set-up to undermine the
character by taking him far enough right wing to make him a
controversial figure (thereby destroying his raison d'etre as
the universally-adored hero of the Marvel Universe), I can only
assume that all this junk is intended to be taken at face value.
Which, to be honest, is faintly creepy and makes me grateful for
the Atlantic Ocean. Jurgens clearly has a vision of America,
and it's one I'm relieved not to be a part of.
This issue, Cap is appalled to learn that a villain he captured
last issue is going to go free because of lack of evidence, and
sets out to do something about it. He obtains some evidence by
slightly underhand means, and the trial duly proceeds.
Now, the big issue in this story is clearly meant to be the
tension between law and justice. Cap is understandably perturbed
by the fact that a man he knows to be guilty is going to go free,
and by the fact that his girlfriend is the defence lawyer.
Let's leave aside the legal technicalities of all this and focus
on the theme, namely the tension between law and justice.
Jurisprudence 101, kids, and here's a shock for those of you who
haven't figured it out yet. The legal system is not designed to
achieve justice. It is designed to approximate justice. It is
recognised from the outset that this will involve some of the
decisions being factually or morally wrong. Legal systems work
through rules and, while rules can be more flexible than you
might imagine, nonetheless that still leaves restrictions on
what the court can do.
The great virtue of a rule-of-law system is meant to be that it
generates certainty and predictability by which people can
organise their affairs. The benefit to the public is meant to
be that they have a reasonable degree of certainty as to what
the law is. This is much better than the alternative, which is
to leave it up to judges to make their own decisions based on
their own moral principles. That approach fails for three main
reasons. One, you haven't got a clue what they're going to do.
Two, morality is subjective and it's unfair to leave everything
up to the whim of individual judges. Would YOU trust most of
them to make up their own laws? Three, democracy can only
function if the electoral body is able to issue rules for the
judiciary to enforce. The benefits of democracy can only be
enjoyed at the cost of leaving you with a rule-of-law system
which, from time to time, will get things wrong.
In short, this is an acknowledged failing of legal systems, but
the benefits to society are considered to outweigh the cost, not
least because nobody's ever come up with a better solution that
didn't involve totalitarian government. All lawyers (or at least
the ones who weren't asleep during their constitutional law and
jurisprudence classes) understand this. It is not exactly an
original observation.
Now, that doesn't mean it's not something that merits a story,
but Jurgens' approach to this well-worn area is so trite as to
boggle the imagination. Our hero goes out and uses very mild
trickery to inveigle his way into an AIM base, where he recovers
some evidence. Jurgens attempts to insinuate that this is some
kind of radically different approach from the good Captain and
that his commitment to truth, justice and the American way
justifies him in breaking the rules in obtaining evidence without
a warrant. This is drivel for two reasons. One, Cap's method
of obtaining the evidence is pretty much standard superhero
territory (and thereby very dull, but that's another matter),
and so the presentation of the character as pushing the
boundaries is false. They wouldn't have trouble getting this
evidence into court. Two, and rather more disturbing, Jurgens
actually seems to believe that violations of human rights are
okay as long as you're doing the right thing. Good old Dan
doesn't seem to have noticed that morality is a subjective and
grey area, which is probably why all his villains are such
dull charaters. As far as Dan is concerned, there is Right and
there is Wrong, and god bless the Daily Mail.
Dan Jurgens really makes me rather uncomfortable.
Even if you agree with good ol' Dan (in which case, please stop
voting), it's a very badly constructed story. Danny Boy is
desperate to keep his love interest lawyer morally pure. Since
Dan cannot comprehend that decent people might believe in
defending people they suspect are probably guilty, he ends up
writing her as an idiot who seems to genuinely believe in her
client's innocence. This would take a degree of wilful
blindness which is simply unbelievable in a character who's
supposed to be an effective trial lawyer. While Ferrari might
credibly be open to believing that Madden is innocent of the
present charge, the idea that she finds nothing suspicious in
his being arrested while wearing an AIM uniform and fighting
Captain America is laughable and makes her look a fool. If
Dan had the courage to write her as the mouthpiece of the
opposing view, knowingly defending Madden even though she had
her doubts over her story, then the story would be all the
better for it. But that would suggest that there are different
moral viewpoints, and clearly that would be wrong.
The credibility of Cap and Sharon Carter getting into an AIM
base in the way they do is, to put it mildly, stretching a
point, and the moments of flagwaving ("Betray SHIELD and you
betray America, mister!") are both embarrassing and slightly
unpleasant. The characterisation is simplistic, the villains
are one-dimensional, and the obligatory monologue about how
Cap's unstoppable because of what he believes in is tiresome
at best. And it would help if Jurgens had ever bothered to
establish what Madden was actually charged with, bearing in mind
that the story seems to proceed on the basis that AIM membership
is not a crime in itself.
Even if you believe it's possible to do intelligent, worthwhile
stories with Captain America, this issue is neither intelligent
nor worthwhile. If Jurgens is aiming for an audience over the
age of ten, then he is insulting their intelligence. If he is
aiming for an audience under the age of ten, then he's writing
propaganda. This represents almost everything that is bad
about Captain America as a character. Horrible, trite opinions
expressed in horrible, trite stories. The sort of book that
annoys me so much that I want to use it as kindling in my next
flag-burning.
Given my reservations about the character, I am not sure it is
even possible to overhaul Captain America in a way that would
seem in-keeping with the Quesada/Jemas regime, short of dumping
his "universally adored hero" role and allowing him to become
involved in stories that would involve him adopting viewpoints
on America that are not universally held. But it must, surely,
be possible to produce something better than this.
Rating: D
------------
(Calm down, deep breaths.)
Over at the other end of the creative spectrum, DEATH AND CANDY
is a selection of strips by Max Anderssen coming out through our
old friends and supporters of the avant garde, Fantagraphics.
And by god, this stuff is weird. Remember those scratchy
eastern european animations that Channel 4 used to use as
schedule fillers at three in the morning? The ones where you
could never work out what the hell was going on, but it seemed
to involve either a squiggly line or a lump of plasticene being
really quite angry? This is kind of like that.
We are way, way into the territory of "dream logic" here. Of
the three stories here, two of them are going for a dreamlike
deadpan surrealism. The third one features a flat dog and a
selection of people who have the front ends of various motor
vehicles instead of heads and frankly, after several reads, I
still haven't got a clue what the hell Anderssen's getting at.
This may be because I am stupid, but I am not writing off the
possibility that it may be because the strip is incomprehensible.
The other two stories work rather better, since although they
still make no logical sense, the weirdness has more of a flow to
it. "Sightseeing" is a particularly demented effort, in which
a man is woken in the night by the visitation of his entire
family, who have brought round a corpse with a severed face.
Sadly this is visible by the neighbours through a window between
the flats (?!). This is the point where the words "with hilarious
consequences" would normally appear, but "with darkly surreal
consequences" is probably more appropriate. Oddly enough, it's
actually quite funny, but requires a very warped sense of humour.
"Bosnian Flat Dog" (look, I'm not making this stuff up) is more
narratively coherent, in that it least gives the characters
some kind of purpose to stick with. Granted, their purpose is
to find a manufacturer of ornamental grenades in Sarajevo, but
it's a purpose. This is a collaboration with one Lars
Sjunnesson, incidentally. It's not apparent what their
respective roles were, but this one does make a certain degree
of sense, as well as tying its jokes slightly closer to reality.
Bear in mind that when I say "closer to reality", that means that
they find a fridge containing several bottles of Slivovica and
the corpse of Marshal Tito.
This is the sort of book that Fantagraphics exist to put out, and
god bless them, but it goes without saying that we are looking
here at something that will appeal to a rather limited market.
In the two strips that I could actually follow, Anderssen does
his black comedy surrealism very well, but whether that's
something you'll actually feel like reading is another matter.
The first strip seems to be weirdness for weirdness' sake.
One for the experimentally minded.
Rating: B
------------
Back in sanity, THE FALL is a one-shot reprinting a strip by
Ed Brubaker and Jason Lutes which, according to the indicia,
was originally serialised in Dark Horse Presents. To be honest,
I was rather surprised to learn that DHP is still going. I
haven't seen a review of it in ages, let alone a copy on sale.
Anyone out there actually reading this book?
But never mind. We're in one of Ed Brubaker's favourite areas
here, the detective story. The protagonist finds a buried
handbag complete with contents, and becomes obsessed with
finding the owner, leading him to investigate an unsolved murder
from nine years before.
This is not a particularly unusual storyline for this genre,
and albeit that our hero isn't actually a detective this time
round, he's still basically fulfilling that role. But Brubaker
throws in some interesting oddities in his story, giving the
hero a curious relationship with his boss's wife and opting not
to go for the obvious ending.
He does, admittedly, end up resorting to a couple of plot
contrivances - it's not altogether clear why the hero bothers
investigating something as mundane as a lost handbag in the
first place, and at one point the story brings in a highly
unlikely chance meeting on the street in order to nudge the plot
onwards. Nonetheless, for the most part Brubaker keeps his
story nicely balanced.
With the story keeping at a suitably down-to-earth level to
maintain credibility, Jason Lutes' art takes a nice steady
approach, sticking with grid layouts and relying on some
effective camera angles. It's understated, but that's the
right approach for this kind of story.
Yes, it's ultimately a genre piece. But there's nothing wrong
with that when they're entertaining, and this is a good
self-contained one-shot that's worth your time.
Rating: A-
------------
Also this week:
CAPTAIN MARVEL #16 - Captain Marvel fights Fredd, his "evil twin
clone future self from an alternate dimension." Oddly enough,
Peter David seems to want us to take this character at least
relatively seriously as a threat, and more or less pulls it off.
The storyline still seems like a bit of an unnecessary diversion
into the Microverse (I don't CARE about the damn Microns), and
I'm not wildly enthusiastic about that old standard, increasing
the hero's powers. Still entertaining, though. B+
CEREBUS #263 - Two more issues to go in the "Form and Void"
storyline, and Sim is getting back to advancing the plot. Some
excellent scenes here with Cerebus and Jaka, and regular readers
can once again endure several pages at the back of Dave Sim
explaining the hopeless inferiority of women. Jesus, get over it,
Dave. Great story, though. A
DAREDEVIL/SPIDER-MAN #4 - The series swerves out of nowhere to
turn into a "villain turns the city into a hellish environment"
story, completely abandoning the Kingpin routine. A completely
bizarre last minute plot twist that seems totally disconnected
from the rest of the series, and doesn't really work. C+
HITMAN #59 - A big action issue, presumably the last one since
I expect Ennis to play up the sentiment next issue (likely by
killing off his central characters). It's not the strongest
Hitman storyline - a couple too many new characters being
introduced late in the day when I'd rather see the book focussing
on its core cast towards the end - but that still makes it
pretty good. B+
OUTLAW NATION #6 - A plot advancement issue, as our hero spends
his time eluding capture, and the Johnson Place is shown as a
rather unpleasant area. Seems a bit of a shift after five issues
of Delano advancing the plot slowly, and the book still hasn't
developed the sort of strong identity that could make it into
another Vertigo flagship, but it's still on the right side of
interesting. B
PROMETHEA #13 - This series is still spending more time on
lecturing us about Moore's religious beliefs than on telling a
story. It's immensely well constructed, but my level of interest
is waning as it becomes apparent that the book is essentially
an advert for a belief system I find rather silly. If you're
prepared to approach Moore's thesis on the nature of reality
with a straight face, of course, then it's excellent. B+
SUPERBOY'S LEGION #1 - I was going to give this a fuller review,
but to be honest I have nothing much to say about it. It's by
Mark Farmer and Alan Davis (Farmer writing, for a change) and it's
an Elseworlds story with Superman's pod being found in the far
future leading to his founding the Legion of Superheroes. You
may well ask what the point is of doing an Elseworlds storyline
based on "what if Superboy formed the Legion of Super-Heroes"
given that Superboy was already in the LSH until Crisis removed
him, and having read the book, I'm unable to supply a clear
answer. Mind you, I've always found all these characters boring,
so don't listen to me. Looks great, anyhow. B-
SWAMP THING #12 - Tefe enlists the help of a politician's
daughter to answer her ethical worries, leading to the obvious
suggestion that her crusade is about to get derailed in favour
of a supporting character's hidden agenda. Vaughan's series is
probably a bit too mainstream in tone for Vertigo, but it's a
pretty successful book if you take it on its own terms. B+
THUNDERBOLTS #49 - Basically an explanation of who Scourge is,
what he was up to for the last few issues, why he was doing it,
and how this ties into the ongoing storylines. Nicieza has an
incredible amount of plots in the air here, and this is his
demonstration of how most of them tie together. By its nature,
this is a pretty complex affair, but Nicieza explains it all
rather well. B+
------------
Next week, we're expecting more of the Mr X storyline in
Wolverine; X-Men Forever moves the focus onto the Toad; the
Excalibur miniseries continues; X-Force #112 comes out a month
late; and Ultimate Marvel Team-Up finally comes out.
And for your late-running books, Generation X, X-Men and
Search for Cyclops are STILL running late; and Blink, X-Force
and Gambit & Bishop are due out next week, but won't be, because
Marvel's traffic management is really bad right now.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Relax - Bush can't count as far as World War III.
Alan David Doane
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>X-MAN rounds off the Fearful Symmetries storyline this issue,
>leaving us with one issue to go before cancellation.
>
>Ariel Olivetti is absent this issue for some reason
The reason is, he quit the title; before its cancellation, IIRC.
Alan David Doane
Editor-in-Chief
Comic Book Galaxy
Usenet's 8th Favourite Comics Web Site
http://www.comicbookgalaxy.com
Richard Morgan
news:20sb79...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk...
>
> ULTIMATE X-MEN #3 - "The Tomorrow People, part 3 of 6"
>
>Ultimate X-Men, but the characters just aren't very distinctive.
>His teenage heroes all share pretty much the same speech patterns,
>the same sense of humour, the same attitude. They do have
>elements that make them unique, but Millar could really do with
>playing up the character side further. Even without turning
>into a soap opera, there's plenty of scope to do it, and as it
>stands he's writing a team who are blurring into one.
That's one of the complaints I have with the series, everyone is you're
stereotypical American Teen, or you're sterotypical Russian Mobster if you
want to be picky, there's no originality here whatsover, it's how the X-Men
would be with Professor Xavier, Wolverine and Jubilee and her half a dozen
clones. I know we havn't had time to develop the characters, but god help me
for saying this, Spider Woman had more personality after three issues (and
costumes) than these X-Men do, with the exception of Wolverine and Magneto,
I disagree that Xavier has found his voice yet, he seems t much in the
background at the present, in fact I can't help feeling that if Miller
brought Rogue in we could do X-Men the Movie, as IMO while a good action
movie only Wolverine, Magneto, Xavier and Rogue were ever developed to a
level where you actually cared about them.
>.
>
>As for the story, this month the heroes rescue a hostage from
>the villains and they have a fight. A hero is seemingly killed
>at the end, although all rules of superhero formula say it's
>just a cliffhanger and he'll turn out okay. Basically a stock
>superhero plot done with a bit more attitude.
And here's my main complaint, "Stock superheo plot done with a bit more
attitude". If this was on TV it would be Dawsons Creek where they all carry
guns, shout and swear but at the end of the day they'd still be exactly the
same at the end of the season as they were at the start.
Ultimate X-Men is to Uncanny what South Park is to the Simpsons, once you
take away the attitude the formulae to both series are the same, and once
it's gone you also start to notice the Uncanny and the Simpsons could in
fact be better written as they don't have to hide behind a "yoof" exterior
to tell their stories. That's what I get from this series, it's trying to
appeal to kids today, yet IMO it, at present fails.
And before everyone says that this is to bring kids in, I'm 16 so this
series is trying to draw me in, Ultimate Spider Man works for me, Young
Justice works for me, Robin doesn't and this joins that on my list of titles
for teens that are really written for the past. Perhaps if you read this in
the 70's or 80's it would be cutting edge and modern, but today its just
you're run of the mill superhero book that tries to capture the youngsters
of today, but doesnt. I mean yes it's nice to see big battles and special
effects, but where's the substance??
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" has big battles and Special effects, yet the
characters are different to what they were at the start of the series, and
it deals with topics relevent to teens today like school life, family,
friendships, relationships and it to can be edgy or even funny like Young
Justice or Ultimate Spidey,even "That 70's Show" (The US version though, the
UK one would be right at home with Ultimate X-Men) presents it's teens in a
way that grabs the attention of the youth of today and far better represents
them than this.
Can anyone see Storm and Pheonix discussing the latest music releases or
Cyclops and Jean on a date or someone finally getting Bobby to come out of
the closet or Peter admitting that he has a drug problem. At the moment I'd
go with a no, as these teens would probably go and beat up a 70 year mutant
than go to the movies or the disco. And there in lies the only difference
between them and the 666 X-Men, they enjoy being mutants while I think each
our X-Men I'm sure just want to blend in with society, and perhaps thats why
they can't do things normal teens can, and if they can't then this is not a
book I want to read.
And Does anyone really care that 2 of these mutants will be gone by the end
of the storyline, well if they bring in Dutchess Elisabeth Braddock and
Samurai Warrior Sunfire then yes I will care, but otherwise we'll probably
just be getting a Warren or Kitty or Kurt who will gel into the departed
heroes roles easily, and no doubt they'll be americanised and Kurt will
probably have white skin while Kitty will be a Christian (thouugh that won't
be discussed as they'll have to fight Impossible Man or something)
I'll see this out to the end of it's arc as Miller may surprise me, but #8
won't be preordered from me, and it's rather sad that Quesada and Jemas
thought that Generation X was too similar to this to cancel it, as right now
I'd give $100 for another adventure of Chamber, M, Husk, Skin and hell even
Jubilee over this.
The only good thing about this series is is Marvel's marketing of it, as
when you get down it when Quesada and Jemas are gone you know that the
Ultimate titles will too, and once you get out of the hyperbole and attitude
these are really no different to DC's adventure line or Marvels previous
kids books, they just made us believe that they were, and while USM is
better than the core line how many people would be reading it if it had been
Spiderman Chapter One or X-Men: The Hidden Yoof Years?, thought as much.
Richard Morgan with his longest post ever
R.Mo...@buffythecomic.fsnet.co.uk
"Me too!!" Michele Weinberger, Romy & Michele's Highschool Reunion "Woooo-
Toussaint here we come!"
Don MacPherson
> by Steven Grant and Quique Alcatera
>
> leaving us with one issue to go before cancellation.
>
> Ariel Olivetti is absent this issue for some reason, and his
> replacement is one Quique Alcatera, who I've never heard of.
Alcatena's other mainstream work has been primarily for DC annuals for a
couple of the Bat-titles. IIRC, he did a fun Batrman-as-pirate Elseworlds
story in a DETECTIVE COMICS ANNUAL a few years back.
Don MacPherson
Shawn Hill
: I disagree that Xavier has found his voice yet, he seems t much in the
: background at the present, in fact I can't help feeling that if Miller
: brought Rogue in we could do X-Men the Movie, as IMO while a good action
: movie only Wolverine, Magneto, Xavier and Rogue were ever developed to a
: level where you actually cared about them.
I'd add "JeanGrey" to that list as well. Her willingness to use Cerebro to
save Prof. X, and her flirtations w/Wolverine definitely showed sides of
her character.
Storm and Cyclops were rather vague stock characters, though. I guess they
hinted at her claustrophobia with the whole rising from the elevator
scene, but Berry really didn't do much with the role.
: kids books, they just made us believe that they were, and while USM is
: better than the core line how many people would be reading it if it had been
: Spiderman Chapter One or X-Men: The Hidden Yoof Years?, thought as much.
well, considering how many people read the bad Spidey: Chapter One, I'd
think a good one would draw in that many more.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:04:01 CST, "Paul O'Brien"
: <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:>X-MAN rounds off the Fearful Symmetries storyline this issue,
:>leaving us with one issue to go before cancellation.
:>
:>Ariel Olivetti is absent this issue for some reason
: The reason is, he quit the title; before its cancellation, IIRC.
Sad, it would have been nice to have the complete set by him, including
the final issue. That said, his replacement is AMAZING. I especially liked
all the alternate reality versions of Idris, and the Escher-heads of Nate
as he haunted Qabiri. Will he stay until the final issue as well?
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Alcatena's other mainstream work has been primarily for DC annuals for a
: couple of the Bat-titles. IIRC, he did a fun Batrman-as-pirate Elseworlds
: story in a DETECTIVE COMICS ANNUAL a few years back.
oh, thanks, I almost bought that DC Annual he did (something about native
american supers, right?), based on the art, but decided to avoid the whole
series. I like his art a lot.
Shawn
B. David Harrison
>
> Sad, it would have been nice to have the complete set by him, including
> the final issue. That said, his replacement is AMAZING. I especially liked
> all the alternate reality versions of Idris, and the Escher-heads of Nate
> as he haunted Qabiri. Will he stay until the final issue as well?
Ack. He was OK, but he was using a horrible reference for what Nate
looked like. Nate's a kid, and that didn't show in the art at all.
--
B. David Harrison Anti-Knuckleheadosity:Last Updated 12/09/2000
Live from Seattle A-Knuck's now monthly: www.drizzle.com/~bdavid
This issue of Anti-Knuckleheadosity:
History will Remember
Shawn Hill
: The huddled masses gained the infinite wisdom of Shawn Hill
:>
:> Sad, it would have been nice to have the complete set by him, including
:> the final issue. That said, his replacement is AMAZING. I especially liked
:> all the alternate reality versions of Idris, and the Escher-heads of Nate
:> as he haunted Qabiri. Will he stay until the final issue as well?
: Ack. He was OK, but he was using a horrible reference for what Nate
: looked like. Nate's a kid, and that didn't show in the art at all.
Which is an interesting pov, as Paul thought he looked about 10, right?
Shawn
B. David Harrison
> : Ack. He was OK, but he was using a horrible reference for what Nate
> : looked like. Nate's a kid, and that didn't show in the art at all.
>
> Which is an interesting pov, as Paul thought he looked about 10, right?
>
No- 10 years too old.
There's on particular close up where you don't see Nate's hair- and he
looks like he's 40.
James Moar
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>: Ack. He was OK, but he was using a horrible reference for what Nate
>: looked like. Nate's a kid, and that didn't show in the art at all.
>
>Which is an interesting pov, as Paul thought he looked about 10, right?
"ten years too old", he said. Which seems fair enough to me.
I quite liked the art. It made me wonder if Alcatena's had rather more
experience with black and white than colour, since it seemed like a lot of
the book would work perfectly well, or even be improved, in B&W.
--
James
"We were all put on Earth for a purpose. Yours is target practice."
Shawn Hill
:> : Ack. He was OK, but he was using a horrible reference for what Nate
:> : looked like. Nate's a kid, and that didn't show in the art at all.
:>
:> Which is an interesting pov, as Paul thought he looked about 10, right?
:>
: No- 10 years too old.
: There's on particular close up where you don't see Nate's hair- and he
: looks like he's 40.
oh, sorry, I guess I misread Paul's post the first time. yes, I agree, he
looks old; but, hey, maybe becoming a mutant shaman with time and space
spanning abilities ages one, huh?
He looked more like someone in his 20s than a teen under Olivetti already.
shawn
Paul O'Brien
>
>Which is an interesting pov, as Paul thought he looked about 10, right?
About 10 years too old, I think I said.
Royce
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ------------
>
>As regular readers may be aware, I absolutely despise CAPTAIN
>AMERICA as a character. I think he has about as much to offer
>to the twenty-first century as the steam railroad. This
>review of issue #40 is not going to be a scathing attack on the
>character's very existence, since there's more than enough to
>attack even if you start from the premise that the character
>is a good idea; but best to have the cards on the table from the
>outset.
Okay, now I'm curious. If you have such a negative opinion of the
character, why do you continue to review the book, much less read it
at all? Anyone actually considering the idea of getting this book
would know that your opinion is extremely biased when it comes to Cap,
so they'd probably just ignore you anyway. This isn't to say that
you're scathing reviews don't have a certain amount of entertainment
value (I don't like Jurgens' Cap or Thor either), but I have to
question your reasons for buying the horrid thing in the first place
when you *could* be spending your money on something more worthy of
review.
Ryan
Hooks
Royce <ryan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bic3at8rh2bl6ftra...@4ax.com...
> Okay, now I'm curious. If you have such a negative opinion of the
> character, why do you continue to review the book, much less read it
> at all?
I'm not Paul, but I will say this: sometimes writing a negative review feels
mighty damn good. It'd get boring praising every book you read, or saying
some books are mediocre or simply average. No. A reviewer needs a book, a
movie, a piece of music that he or she will absolutely despise. You need to
base the positives on _something_.
Now, that said, I'm glad I'm not a reviewer. I get to read books I like
without having to hurt my brain deciphering the bad shit out there. Thank
heavens for Paul O'Brien. I get to read his wonderful reviews of bad shit,
he gets to read the bad shit and warn the rest of us. Cheers.
(X)
Matt Adler
> <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ------------
> >
> >As regular readers may be aware, I absolutely despise CAPTAIN
> >AMERICA as a character. I think he has about as much to offer
> >to the twenty-first century as the steam railroad. This
> >review of issue #40 is not going to be a scathing attack on the
> >character's very existence, since there's more than enough to
> >attack even if you start from the premise that the character
> >is a good idea; but best to have the cards on the table from the
> >outset.
I know you despise the concept of Captain America, but I wonder if you see
the concept the same way that people who like it do? I mean, one person can
taste a plate of spaghetti, and love it, and another person can taste that
same plate and hate it, but at least they're tasting the same plate. To me,
the core concept of CA is thus:
He was an idealist, repulsed by what he saw going on in Europe during the
Nazi occupation. He was a weakling, unfit for military service. He was
chosen as the subject of an experiment to create a super-soldier. The
scientist who developed the formula was killed, thus making him the lone
super-soldier. In the course of battling a foe, he was thrown into suspended
animation and woke up in modern day America. Now he strives to continue to
fight for his ideals, with the added challenge of being a man out of his
time.
Is this how you see the core concept? If so, what do you dislike about it?
--
"Hmm, Mr. Immortal has the makings of an interesting concept, but c'mon,
Flatman is kind of dopey."
"Dopey? Where's your SENSE OF WONDER? Your vacant eyes betray the DEADNESS
OF YOUR VERY SOUL!"
-- As told by Adam Cadre
23yrold3yrold
news:im4UWqAA...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
>
> Really? Must have a look. Thanks.
If you care, Weinberg also rebutted your last Cable review on the X-Fan
message boards. He specifically targeted you and the Fandom reviewer.
--
Chris Barry
"After all, when one is serving bait, presentation is everything." -
Megatron
"Waldo, what is this?"
"CAAAAAT!!"
"And what does Waldo do with cats?"
"JUMP ON!"
"And do you know why?"
"MAKE FUNNY NOISE!!"
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
B. David Harrison
>
> "Paul O'Brien" <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > I don't expect people to read those reviews for guidance. They're
> > in there, as you say, in the hope that they're entertaining or at
> > least interesting in their own right.
>
> You know, someone posted your review (with link) on the Captain America message
> board at comicboards.com. Quite the uproar, as you can imagine. However, no one
> was able to clearly debunk your arguments. Heh heh.
>
>
"Quite the uproar" isn't how I'd call it.
It's more like one guy and a bunch of ad hominem attacks. Very little
actual discussion of the review.
Dave Groening
For a board with a relatively small amount of traffic, I think it qualified as
an uproar. Not every online forum can have endless flame wars like on Usenet.
<g>
> It's more like one guy and a bunch of ad hominem attacks. Very little
> actual discussion of the review.
True, most people chose not to attack the review itself - ergo, "no one debunked
the arguments". Which I found to be very telling all by itself.
Paul O'Brien
<mad...@ic.sunysb.edu> writes
>
>He was an idealist, repulsed by what he saw going on in Europe during the
>Nazi occupation. He was a weakling, unfit for military service. He was
>chosen as the subject of an experiment to create a super-soldier. The
>scientist who developed the formula was killed, thus making him the lone
>super-soldier. In the course of battling a foe, he was thrown into suspended
>animation and woke up in modern day America. Now he strives to continue to
>fight for his ideals, with the added challenge of being a man out of his
>time.
>
>Is this how you see the core concept? If so, what do you dislike about it?
Without wanting to retread old ground, my difficulty with the concept
of Captain America is that it conflates his role as representative of
America with his role as representative of all that is good in the
world. He's presented as a practically flawless figure, something
which is implicitly identified with his nationality and patriotism.
This is only to be expected in a character created as a national hero
during wartime, but sits very uneasily in later times. The man-out-
of-time stuff which you mention is all very well, and actually one
of the few aspects of the character which does interest me, but
rarely played up as a central aspect these days. I also think that
the need to protect that character's role as a universally adored
moral figure really limits what you can do with him, particularly
in relation to any controversial stories about America.
Paul O'Brien
Groening <davegr...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>True, most people chose not to attack the review itself - ergo, "no one debunked
>the arguments". Which I found to be very telling all by itself.
I thought it was hilarious. Thanks for pointing it out.
Paul O'Brien
writes
>
>If you care, Weinberg also rebutted your last Cable review on the X-Fan
>message boards. He specifically targeted you and the Fandom reviewer.
Seen it. Weinberg's position seems to be that all will become clear
in the long run. And of course, he may well be right.
Matt Adler
> Without wanting to retread old ground, my difficulty with the concept
> of Captain America is that it conflates his role as representative of
> America with his role as representative of all that is good in the
> world. He's presented as a practically flawless figure, something
> which is implicitly identified with his nationality and patriotism.
I've read takes on CA where this was not the case. I can think of quite a
few stories which have illustrated his very real failings, and he often has
to reconcile that with the fact that he is *expected* to be perfect, as a
national icon. As for his nationality and patriotism, he is certainly
patriotic, but the best stories I've read with CA have been those where he
is fighting for ideals that transcend national boundaries (ie; liberty and
justice for all) which he often explicitly expresses. I know some find this
corny, but I admire a person who articulates their beliefs in a passionate
way. Example: There have been times in the past when government orders
conflicted with his ideals, and held to his ideals even though it meant
disobeying the government.
> This is only to be expected in a character created as a national hero
> during wartime, but sits very uneasily in later times.
The character has developed a lot more depth since the
"sock-Hitler-in-the-nose" days.
The man-out-
> of-time stuff which you mention is all very well, and actually one
> of the few aspects of the character which does interest me, but
> rarely played up as a central aspect these days.
I agree, and I'd like to see it explored more. If the contrast was striking
in the 1960's, how much more so in the 21st century?
I also think that
> the need to protect that character's role as a universally adored
> moral figure really limits what you can do with him, particularly
> in relation to any controversial stories about America.
So then, it seems your problem is not with the concept, but how it has been
used at times. I'm sure there are some Cap experts that could recommend
issues to you that don't consist of blind flag-waving patriotism. I could
describe the stories, but I'm not very good with issue numbers.
Consul de Designers
> As for his nationality and patriotism, he is certainly patriotic, but the best stories I've read with CA have been those where he
> is fighting for ideals that transcend national boundaries (ie; liberty and justice for all) which he often explicitly expresses. I know some
> find this corny, but I admire a person who articulates their beliefs in a passionate way. Example: There have been times in the past when
> government orders conflicted with his ideals, and held to his ideals even though it meant disobeying the government.
Is this just Paul's lack of rah-rah for a government spokesperson/identity, or
does it go to a thought in general of all the EU? Of a nationalism? What with
the creation of the EU, does it matter that your nations might not be as
distinct as they are? No France, no Germany, no England? It's not there yet, and
I doubt it won't go there, but do you see more folks who don't like the EU for
that reason, the diminishing prominence on being from whatever country?
> > The man-out- of-time stuff which you mention is all very well, and actually one of the few aspects of the character which does interest me,
> > but rarely played up as a central aspect these days.
> I agree, and I'd like to see it explored more. If the contrast was striking
> in the 1960's, how much more so in the 21st century?
They did an issue a few months ago, and it dealt with Cap and having Sharon in
charge of SHIELD. It was nice thought, but it made me think that Cap was still
struggling to get over the fact that a woman was in charge, when I figured he
had those issues worked out a long time ago, him being a forward thinker.
--
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu, 'mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human'
Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners
Link at: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~jamesony
Carl Henderson
>So then, it seems your problem is not with the concept, but how it has been
>used at times. I'm sure there are some Cap experts that could recommend
>issues to you that don't consist of blind flag-waving patriotism. I could
>describe the stories, but I'm not very good with issue numbers.
The classic such run on CAPTAIN AMERICA was Steve Englehart's "Secret
Empire/Nomad" story arc which ran from #169 to #183 (vol. 1).
In this story Captain America fights a fascist conspiracy headed up by a "high
government official" (strongly implied to be Richard Nixon). When Cap finally
defeats the Secret Empire, and unmasks its leader (who kills himself), he is
horrified and disillusioned (#174). He gives up the "Captain America" identity
and assumes a new superheroic identity of "Nomad--the Man Without a Country"
(#175).
For the next six months, there is no "Captain America" in CAPTAIN AMERICA. He
finally becomes Captain America once more after the Red Skull resurfaces and
kills someone who was trying to "fill-in" as Captain America (#183).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson rec.arts.comics/rec.arts.comics.misc FAQ
carl.he...@airmail.net http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/miscfaq.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Adler
> To be honest there's a strong feeling in the UK, especially in
> England, that patriotism and nationalism runs very close to racism and
> xenophobia.
I think this is a fundamental cultural difference. In Europe, nationalism
has almost always been tied to ethnicity, and by extension, racism and
xenophobia. The U.S., from its beginnnings, was an ethnically and
religiously diverse region. You had Catholics, Protestants, Jews, English,
Dutch, French, Germans, Africans, Hispanics, and more. While many hatreds
and prejudices were carried over from the old country, they were not as
clear cut as in Europe. So when nationalism developed in America, it was not
so much along ethnic or religious lines. Today, I think if you ask most
people why they are proud to be American, they'll speak about ideals or
accomplishments, rather than ethnic or cultural background.
Paul O'Brien
<garj...@spamlessntlworld.com> writes
>It's just a different cuture and mindset, the idea of
>pledging alegiance to the flag is looked upon either as ridiculous or
>even abhorrent by most people here.
Any politician in the UK who wanted to start the school day with a
pledge of allegiance would be committing political suicide. Seriously.
Lia Brown
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <o5t7atce4oc1fso35...@4ax.com>, Garjones
><garj...@spamlessntlworld.com> writes
>>It's just a different cuture and mindset, the idea of
>>pledging alegiance to the flag is looked upon either as ridiculous or
>>even abhorrent by most people here.
>
>Any politician in the UK who wanted to start the school day with a
>pledge of allegiance would be committing political suicide. Seriously.
Well, here in Canada we don't pledge allegiance to anything, though at
my schools we always had to sing or listen to 'O Canada' at the start
of every school day (much to our dismay). But I'm curious as to why
exactly it would be looked upon so badly in the UK. Granted, the
different mindset as Gareth said above, but what would cause people to
react so harshly to it? A fear of what nationalism can lead to, or
just a distaste for flag-waving?
My fondest patriotism-related moment came when I was in high school,
and the anthem came over the loudspeaker. A bunch of us were in the
surly-teenager stage, and as usual, didn't take off our caps. Our
teacher had stepped out of the room for a few minutes, and had left
this old Scottish guy to look after us; when he saw what we were
doing, he bellowed "TAKE YUIR HATS OFF FOR THE ANTHEM!!". You never
saw kids take off their caps so fast.
Lia
"I see there's a reassuring amount of crack consumption
going on around here at the moment." ---Alasdair Watson
Lia Brown, Mad Praetor and Grand High Duchess of the Procrastinators.
Freedom Force: http://tatooine.fortunecity.com/bear/353/ffcentral.html
Hooks
Lia Brown <ro...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:3aa60ac6...@news.golden.net...
> Well, here in Canada we don't pledge allegiance to anything
*snip*
Gods, I just realized how awful "I pledge _allegiance_ to the flag" sounds.
(X)
Paul O'Brien
<ro...@golden.net> writes
>
>Well, here in Canada we don't pledge allegiance to anything, though at
>my schools we always had to sing or listen to 'O Canada' at the start
>of every school day (much to our dismay). But I'm curious as to why
>exactly it would be looked upon so badly in the UK. Granted, the
>different mindset as Gareth said above, but what would cause people to
>react so harshly to it? A fear of what nationalism can lead to, or
>just a distaste for flag-waving?
It's not a question of fear. The British find this sort of thing
funny and ridiculous. We just can't fathom why anyone of functioning
intelligence would want to do such a thing. The answer, of course,
is cultural differences... but the British just find it a completely
absurd way to act. We still have prayer in schools, but in such a
pathetic and token sense that we might as well not bother.
Paul O'Brien
<garj...@spamlessntlworld.com> writes
>
>I remember a US politician over here saying that
>if interviewers on TV were as harch and unforgiving as the ones in the
>UK nobody would enter politics.
British political interviewers are astonishing in contrast to American
ones. Jeremy Paxman's demolition of Michael Howard on live television
is a classic (he repeated the question "Did you threaten to overrule
him?" fifteen times in a row in order to prove that Howard was dodging
it).
>The other factor is to do with the far right having hijacked the flag
>for a long time and linking it to racism and intolerence and I think
>the close proximity to what happened in Nazi Germany.
True. Flagwaving patriotism has acquired fascist connotations in the
UK. Some Americans' bizarre belief that burning their flag should be
a criminal offence certainly plays into this mindset.
>It's lessened
>slightly after the Britpop thing and the Spice Girls tried to claim it
>back as a positive symbol.
Again, true.
>Of course many Welsh, Scottish and Northern
>Irish people don't like to be considered British at all and half the
>English don't even know the words to God Save The Queen.
The Scots no longer even use the UK national anthem for sporting
events. It was becoming embarrassing when the Scottish supporters
were booing their own national anthem. We use "Flower of Scotland"
now, a folk song written about 25 years ago. I believe the Welsh
and Irish are in a similar position.
Franfreluche
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3aa60ac6...@news.golden.net>, Lia Brown
> <ro...@golden.net> writes
> >
> >Well, here in Canada we don't pledge allegiance to anything, though at
> >my schools we always had to sing or listen to 'O Canada' at the start
> >of every school day (much to our dismay). But I'm curious as to why
> >exactly it would be looked upon so badly in the UK. Granted, the
> >different mindset as Gareth said above, but what would cause people to
> >react so harshly to it? A fear of what nationalism can lead to, or
> >just a distaste for flag-waving?
I never had to sing or hear the "O Canada" at the start of every school
day, but I live in the province of Quebec too:D
>
> It's not a question of fear. The British find this sort of thing
> funny and ridiculous. We just can't fathom why anyone of functioning
> intelligence would want to do such a thing. The answer, of course,
> is cultural differences... but the British just find it a completely
> absurd way to act. We still have prayer in schools, but in such a
> pathetic and token sense that we might as well not bother.
I agree, I find it funny and ridiculous to sing the national anthem. I
think the same thing of saying a prayer every morning at school. I
never had to say a prayer every morning at school too.
Franfreluche
CleV
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <nk3dat4kf34fd7pcm...@4ax.com>, Garjones
><garj...@spamlessntlworld.com> writes
>>I remember a US politician over here saying that
>>if interviewers on TV were as harch and unforgiving as the ones in the
>>UK nobody would enter politics.
>British political interviewers are astonishing in contrast to American
>ones. Jeremy Paxman's demolition of Michael Howard on live television
>is a classic (he repeated the question "Did you threaten to overrule
>him?" fifteen times in a row in order to prove that Howard was dodging
>it).
Is there an American version of Paxman? Someone who might grill a
politician and actually say something like "Aren't you being
ridiculous?" when they're being ridiculous?
>>The other factor is to do with the far right having hijacked the flag
>>for a long time and linking it to racism and intolerence and I think
>>the close proximity to what happened in Nazi Germany.
>True. Flagwaving patriotism has acquired fascist connotations in the
>UK. Some Americans' bizarre belief that burning their flag should be
>a criminal offence certainly plays into this mindset.
>>It's lessened
>>slightly after the Britpop thing and the Spice Girls tried to claim it
>>back as a positive symbol.
>Again, true.
Well, Tony Blair certainly has tried to play up the notion that modern
Britain is *good* at various things, and that it is a thing to be
proud of.
However the only time nationalism is expressed, from my experience in
the UK, is under a heavy veil of irony - as if "well I know I'm being
silly, but ..."
OTOH, you do have the stereotypical British holidaymakers who always
insist that everything's better back home.
Consul de Designers
> of every school day (much to our dismay). But I'm curious as to why exactly it would be
> looked upon so badly in the UK. Granted, the different mindset as Gareth said above, but
> what would cause people to react so harshly to it? A fear of what nationalism can lead
> to, or just a distaste for flag-waving?
I joke with the in-the-US-Euro-friends of mine that the emphasis on socialism
has withered down the sense of self-determination and pride in one's nation, for
the fear of seeming better than another person. Stay a part of the herd. :)
Clay Peterson
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:19:15 +0000, Paul O'Brien
> <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >British political interviewers are astonishing in contrast to American
> >ones. Jeremy Paxman's demolition of Michael Howard on live television
> >is a classic (he repeated the question "Did you threaten to overrule
> >him?" fifteen times in a row in order to prove that Howard was dodging
> >it).
>
> Is there an American version of Paxman? Someone who might grill a
> politician and actually say something like "Aren't you being
> ridiculous?" when they're being ridiculous?
Judging by the easy time GW Bush had during the campaign -- and now during
his presidency -- in making hollow, pointless, untruthful, or just plain
stupid statements -- and getting away with them -- I'd say no.
At least, not in the mainstream, national press. I imagine that there are
reporters on staff of The Nation or Mother Jones or the like who could
make Bush cry, but they're never going to get an interview with him.
I suppose that "journalists" like Chris Matthews on CNBC or Bill O'Reilly
on FOX would consider themselves to be like Paxman, but their interview
style mainly consists of yelling at people who disagree with them and
fawning over people who agree with them.
American journalism is truly in a sorry state right now.
Clay
----------
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
--Presidential Appointee George W. Bush, 12/18/00
Paul O'Brien
<jame...@usc.edu> writes
>
>I joke with the in-the-US-Euro-friends of mine that the emphasis on socialism
>has withered down the sense of self-determination and pride in one's nation, for
>the fear of seeming better than another person. Stay a part of the herd. :)
God knows if I were surrounded by Americans, I wouldn't want to be a
part of the herd.
Paul O'Brien
Emanuel Jacobowitz
<jame...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
>> > The man-out- of-time stuff which you mention is all very well, and actually one of the few aspects of the character which does interest me,
>> > but rarely played up as a central aspect these days.
>> I agree, and I'd like to see it explored more. If the contrast was striking
>> in the 1960's, how much more so in the 21st century?
>
>They did an issue a few months ago, and it dealt with Cap and having Sharon in
>charge of SHIELD. It was nice thought, but it made me think that Cap was still
>struggling to get over the fact that a woman was in charge, when I figured he
>had those issues worked out a long time ago, him being a forward thinker.
One thing a lot of people, including (I suspect) most of the writers
tend to forget is that the 1930s were a much more socially progressive
time than the post-war decade or two. A lot of people write Cap as if
he came from the 50s Midwest, whereas he was actually the kind of 30s
New York New Dealer who those people despised as pinko subversive
loons.
So while Cap might well be, for example _surprised_ to find a woman
running things, he wouldn't _mind_ it.
MannyJ
Brian Michael Caffrey
CleV <CL...@balJUNKcab.ch> wrote in message
news:3aa6a025...@news.balcab.ch...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:19:15 +0000, Paul O'Brien
> <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <nk3dat4kf34fd7pcm...@4ax.com>, Garjones
> ><garj...@spamlessntlworld.com> writes
>
> >>I remember a US politician over here saying that
> >>if interviewers on TV were as harch and unforgiving as the ones in the
> >>UK nobody would enter politics.
>
> >British political interviewers are astonishing in contrast to American
> >ones. Jeremy Paxman's demolition of Michael Howard on live television
> >is a classic (he repeated the question "Did you threaten to overrule
> >him?" fifteen times in a row in order to prove that Howard was dodging
> >it).
>
> Is there an American version of Paxman? Someone who might grill a
> politician and actually say something like "Aren't you being
> ridiculous?" when they're being ridiculous?
Hunter S. Thompson? Only with more cursing... Shame he's holed up in Woody
Creek these days.
--
b m c ____ rockers against drugs suck
icq47130468
______________________________
www.misterridiculous.com | http://wecome.to/intelligentinsanity
Paul O'Brien
<brian...@esatclear.ie> writes
>>
>> Is there an American version of Paxman? Someone who might grill a
>> politician and actually say something like "Aren't you being
>> ridiculous?" when they're being ridiculous?
>
>Hunter S. Thompson?
God, no. Hunter S Thompson is a drug-addled lunatic who wrote some
very good books over twenty years ago - so good, in fact, that people
overlook the very bad books he's written more recently. Paxman is
just a spectacularly harsh political interviewer.
Jess Nevins
Paul O'Brien wrote:
> In article <bUBq6.14747$PF4....@news.iol.ie>, Brian Michael Caffrey
> <brian...@esatclear.ie> writes
> >>
> >> Is there an American version of Paxman? Someone who might grill a
> >> politician and actually say something like "Aren't you being
> >> ridiculous?" when they're being ridiculous?
> >
> >Hunter S. Thompson?
>
> God, no. Hunter S Thompson is a drug-addled lunatic who wrote some
> very good books over twenty years ago - so good, in fact, that people
> overlook the very bad books he's written more recently. Paxman is
> just a spectacularly harsh political interviewer.
If American politicians would allow themselves to be interviewed by
them, I could easily see Christopher Hitchens, Alexander Cockburn, or
Gore Vidal bringing out the rhetorical knives.
jess