Since it came up in comments below, I suppose I should ask you directly, Paul: is the real problem in your eyes that editorial considers the Decimation itself a solution rather than a plot problem? That is, can the books actually make headway against the plotline given some of the stated reasons it was implemented in the first place?
Interesting point Omar, and I would say only certain writers are allowed headway.
Carey, for actually being the one with the stones to try and fix it, probably won't be rewarded with actually reversing M-Day, but rather Fraction simply because he has Quesada's eye right now.
It reminds me of Excalibur wanting to be the book to cure the Legacy virus, but not being allowed to because it was the 6th X-book (Uncanny, X-Men, Wolverine, X-Force, and X-Factor all being ahead of it in terms of a hierarchy of importance)
X-Men Legacy has been a favorite of late, and as a bookend of its current format (I suppose Xavier Quest must end once he's co-opted by crossover), this story was quite good.
This week's issue of Uncanny seems to suggest that something is coming in terms of the Decimation turn around. And, for once, may answer what the hell Magneto was doing in issue 500. Here's hoping.
I'd quite like an explanation of what the hell the time travelling sequence at the end of X-Force was about.
The conclusion to Messiah War is getting a lot of those "what the hell was the point?" posts around the internet.
I've had a fondness for Exodus as a character for a while now--ever since the 1999 annual where he took over Genosha for a bit. Unfortunately, this reads to an almost identical positioning for the character: after years of somewhat blindly following other people's dreams, he needs to define his own. So basically, he's repeating himself.
Actually, I think that makes him an interesting embodiment of the problem you see in the X-Books at large: rather than really make any changes, they just go through the motions and pay lip service to the idea that a bold new direction is in place.
I feel like Morrison genuinely did make changes, not ones that led to much after he left (Emma Frost aside) but still, actual changes.
Maybe too obvious, but the finale to Fractions crossover is called Exodus. A reference to the mutant? Or are the mutants ready to leave SF already?
Also, as much as I enjoy what he's been doing on Legacy, I really wish Carey were on Uncanny instead. Unlike some other writers, he actually groups characters whose powers and personalities will make a balanced team, rather than just making a group of big names (X-Infernus, case in point: a trip to hell and, Pixie aside, they don't take any flyers, 'porters, or ranged fighters, but rather just a bunch of brawlers? Srsly?) and in his Secret Invasion mini better illustrated this whole "mutant army" business than Fraction's been able to do yet. He actually thinks creatively about how a character's powers work and how he can use them in different and interesting ways, and he has a keen grasp of the big picture. Carey really should be leading the X-books right now, now sitting on the outskirts of the franchise.
Apropos of very little, I love that variant cover.
What I'm curious about is if Quesada and Co finally decide to man up and reverse M-Day/Decimation, where can the X-Franchise move on to?
I'd suggest that the problem of the X-books is a problem thats symptomatic to the Marvel and DC universes.
Essentially, people want to read stories about a character, be it Batman, Superman, X-men, Spider-man or whatever, the problem is of course that the role of said characters can never really change that much because if you shift too far from the iconic interpretation you risk losing the appeal of the character.
This is pretty much the reason we seem to be getting these temporary 'world changing' stories. M-day is really just equivelant to Spider-man revealling his identity or Cap dying, they provide the illusion of change in these properties while actually just taking a brief detour away from the status quo.
You'll also note that Marvel's most critically acclaimed current books, with the possible exception of Captain America, all star non-iconic properties. Hercules, Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain Britain, Iron Fist, X-factor etc are not iconic properties, and therefore don't have the same restrictions of what can be done that cripple character development in the high profile books.
It's a pity though that in equal measure the small league books are unable to make any noticable dent on any other title. Case to point - no one cares if Vampires take over the UK except British heroes apparently. Which is why, unfortunalty, we'll never get anything like the House to Astonish suggestion of Moon Knight being the one to take down Osbourne. Which is a shame, as realistically the MU would be far more interesting if sometimes it was C to Z list characters who resolved crossovers.
... we seem to be getting these temporary 'world changing' stories. M-day is really just equivalent to Spider-man revealling his identity or Cap dying, they provide the illusion of change in these properties while actually just taking a brief detour away from the status quo.
That's not a problem in itself: big illusions of change can fuell an interesting detour arc, see Bucky-Cap and that's fine for everyone involved. If people did not want the iconic characters but wanted more open storylines, they wouldn't be reading superhero books in the first place.
The problem with the X-books is that there neither is nor was any direction since M-Day. So when it's reversed, they'll have been threading water for five years. Which - to be fair - they've tended to do way before M-Day.
Accepted change is always hard to attain, sometimes they get it, most of the time they don't.
On some level I can understand Marvel's easy-way-out by simply reverting to a status quo of yesteryear (be it Brand New Day or M-Day), for the obvious reasons of familairity and recognisability. This works for solo characters.
However. the X-Men Universe isn't a solo character.
This universe consists of all types of characters, story possibilities, rammifications etc. Marvel is too hooked up on the same big guns doing the same things with the same people. But because the franchise is about a certain type of people and not a select group of characters, the common concerns of unfamiliarity or unrecognisability due to changes too grand, aren't much of an issue. At least, aslong as Marvel doesn't make it much of an issue, which they seem to want to.
M-Day simply has one logical conclusion; it's undoing.
Thereby (hopefully) infusing the books with new blood. With this time the books taking a slower pace to rebuilding and re-establishing the mutant race as an actual RACE. It's the only direction the books CAN go in, and every writers hints at wanting to go in. Because at the end of the day, this franchise is about a certain type of people and once you limit that, as shown, the franchise becomes about something it never was.
This was a cool issue. I'm actually glad Carey is more on the fringes of the X-Men line. At the end of the day I only care about reading good stories and don't get too worried about whether something 'matters' in the long term. It is superhero comics after all.
Carey is just like Peter David in that he is great at injecting personality into any old character and great at getting the most out of various power sets (which is key for X-Men comics). With them off in there own little corners it gives me a couple X-Men comics I can enjoy. Zeb Wells' New Mutants might wind up like that too. It didn't take me long to figure out I didn't care for the most recent incarnation of Uncanny and I'm happy to mostly ignore it.
Theres nothing wrong with those cyclical patterns in themselves, and they are certainly preferable to an endless villain of the week cycle (this week, Wolverine fights character X!) but equally it doesn't address the underlying issue of long term stagnation beyond giving a temporary reprieve.
As you say, the X-men *should* be more resilient to it than individual characters, but the same characters constantly float to the top. If there is a last ditch stand against an enemy, what are the odds that Wolverine and Cyclops are involved? In some ways, thought the name 'Dark X-men' is pretty daft, the concept of two rival X-teams with different views could at least make a break from 'well we are loitering around until the messiah crossover trilogy finishes' fighting threats without enough gravitas to feel significant
I believe the bit at the end of the X-Force issue was the characters in question trying to get back to where they started before taking off the devices and making the return trip, the theory being that if they return from the same spot, they'll return to the same spot, ergo, they'll save Boom Boom, who, if you look back, was in the final stage of being executed when Scott and Hank turned on the time pieces.
With regard to Alex's point above, let's not forget that Norman Osborn was hardly a centerpiece character before Dark Reign (whether or not you consider him to be, Marvel does). Iron Man was the hero no one ever bothered to read until Civil War. Thor was considered to be unto poison until Marvel made the rather wise move to pull him away for a few years and bring him back with fanfare. While Spider-Man and Wolverine got the initial attention in New Avengers, it was Spider-Woman and Luke Cage who got a lot of attention and a lot of new fans.
Point being: characters can in fact move up and down the hierarchy levels if Marvel chooses to do do so, at which point, yes, their status quo may become more static because Marvel wants to hold onto a good property. Let's not forget that Moon Knight launched very high only a few years ago and quickly squandered away its sales once people got sick of the delays and critically-reviled writing.
Unfortunately, the X-Men line is generally considered to be a big property, so aside from the lesser characters like Emma Frost and Deadpool being able to move around, Wolverine and the main team do have to meet a level of in-house expectations.
I really do like Omar's point above. M-Day was the solution to what Marvel considered to be a problem. The writers are all treating it like a problem because the characters would be stupid not to acknowledge it. This doesn't lend itself to resolution, although it seems like it should, which means it ends up just being detrimental to the characters. Say what you want about One More Day, but at least Spider-Man hasn't been banging on about his deal with the devil for four years. (Although that would be more interesting than what the X-Men do.) Since Spidey doesn't acknowledge it, we don't have to worry about it unless we choose to.
Oh, and since it seems like this is the place to suggest answers to M-Day, I'll go ahead and say it would be easiest to just have the gene reactivated for future generations (ie, mutants can be born) but leave it off for the current generation, which solves Marvel's problem of too many mutants, since we all know that the sliding timeline will result in us having the current generation around 'till the end of... Marvel.
I would quite like it if Cyclops lost his mince and started treating the X-active mutants like any other endangered or conserved creature - in other words, aggressively encouraging them to breed like there's no tomorrow.
Coming This Fall: UNCANNY X-MEN: GIVE'S A MINUTE, I'M NORRA MACHINE!
"I'm the best there is at what I do, and I can be in fifteen places at once."
Starring a cast of dozens and some suspiciously hairy babies.
//Oo/\
Oh, hey, this may actually be the worst thing that I have ever articulated, but I've always felt that Wolverine's healing factor would leave him sterile, because of the much higher speed of reabsorption of all them muttonchoppy sperm cells.
You would have to have REAL GOOD TIMING, is what I'm getting at.
Which is officially too much thought to be put into Wolverine!
//Oo/\
This has got me thinking...
A List X Men = Professor X, Cyclops, Wolverine
B List X Men = Jean Grey, Emma Frost, Storm, Gambit, Rogue, Beast
C List X Men = Ice Man, Angel, Colossus, Nightcrawler, Cable, Deadpool, Kitty Pryde
D List X Men = X23, Cannonball, Pixie, Bishop, Psylocke, Madrox, Magik, Havok
E List X Men = Banshee, Moonstar, Rhane, Dazzler, Jubilee, Sunspot, Polaris
And then you get to much more populated lower-tiers.
Anyway, my point in making this list was 1) for fun to see if others would agree with me 2) to point out that these characters were created during a variety of periods, fairly popular characters were created fairly recently and a lot of the original A List cast has fallen pretty far.
Where can the X-Men go? Nowhere, they're a mainstream super-hero team. We all know that no progression grwoth or change will ultimately stick so why don't the shepherds just try writing the x-men to the formula that has always worked for team books (and particular the x-books) and will work again.
Write stories that roughly alternate between throwing the characters at big fun inventive super-hero stuff and throwing them at things that resonate with the central metaphor.
Write stories that allow individual characters to progress and grow.
You can't devlop the status quo. The X-men story ultimately has only one of two endings, they get along well with everyone or they all get wiped out. Develop the story towards one of these two endings and you finally end up just needing to end the book.
You can make cosmetic changes to the status quo (lets move to Australia, lets move to San Francisco, there are lots of mutants, there are no mutants) but you're never going to be able to change the fact that the X-Men are fighting to protect a world that hates and fears them. Nor should you.
You CAN make changes to individual characters that allow for long term story progression and depth. Look at wolverine's move from outsider to father figure, Xavier's trek from saint to pariah. But ultimately you should then write those characters out of the book otherwise the characters just stagnate too.
Teambooks work on the following axis.
1. Identify strong central concept.
2. Write stories that reflect central concept.
3. Add big fun super hero imagination.
4. Develop chaarcter arcs over time.
Only 2 writers have ever really written the X-Men sucessfully, Claremont and Morrison, and they both followed this arc.
Claremont did some stories that resonated with the mutants as minorities metaphor (God Loves, Man Kills, the first Genoshan arc) did some crazy imaginative super-hero stuff (any shiar, savage land or hellfire story) developed characters (dark phoenix saga, cyclops leaving the team, rogue's move from hero to villain, storm from naieve to warrior) and crucially wrote characters out when their story arc had ended (jean, scott, kitty, etc).
Morrison does the same. Some fun stuff that is all about imagination (U-Men, Here Comes Tomorrow, Cassandra Nova) some stuff that resonates with the mutants as metaphor for youth (riot at xaviers, that last magneto arc) and some long character arcs with climaxes (beak's move from pathetic to father, scott hooking up with emma, jean finally dying and letting everyone move on).
Fraction can't do this simple formula because a) he has no metaphor to work with as M-Day destroyed it b) he can't develop characters because he has fartoo many of them to devote time to building any of them up.
So all he has left as a recourse is pure big fun super hero action (a la any of the X-Club stories) and that is the only really sucessful element of the book so far.
He is further hampered by an artist that can't sell super-hero images.
Until editorial reverts M-Day, Land leaves and he pares down the cast to a manageable level Uncanny will continue to dissappoint.
Hey Rhett
The problem with your system is you don't give any reasons for why you put which characters in with "list."
As a bare minimum, if you're going to do M-Day, you HAVE to do stories about the remaining mutants, and the former mutants, at least TRYING to undo it (whether they succeed or not), and it took three years even to get round to that.
Insofar as they wanted to get rid of entire communities of mutants, and make them unusual again, I can see the point, but they've massively overshot the mark. Moreover, in doing so they've tanked a metaphor that had driven the books quite effectively for 30 years, but most importantly, they've utterly failed to replace that engine with anything else.
I was initially open to the idea that there might be stories to tell about the last survivors of the mutant race (at least as a medium-term set-up, since we all know everything gets reversed in the end). But by this point I'm fairly convinced that there cant be very many of them, otherwise we'd have seen more of a handful of them by now.
Let's not forget that alot of this is the fault of Astonishing. The flagship book which never came out and paid lip service to M-day. Once.
The other books kind of sat around not doing anything about it cause it wasn't their job. Since Mike Carey started his run on X-men in the build up to messiah complex it has been at least working towards something. If you read House of M and skip straight to the start of the Mike Carey run, read Messiah Complex and then follow Uncanny, well, at least it has some momentum.
That said, however, I'm not convinced anyone has any idea of where it's actually going. All Messiah War turned out to be was 7 issues of fluff to get Apocalypse to stand in front of Hope and say "yes, you are important". Not saying that I didn't enjoy the crossover, it just didn't leave me with any faith that any creator knows where we are going. It didn't reveal any of the bigger picture cause they haven't finished deciding what the bigger picture is just yet.
And images of the lead up to Onslaught come flooding back....
You could argue that post operation zero tolerance (if you ignore Morrisons run for the time being) the books have been rather directionless.
They're rather like the Avengers/Fantastic 4 titles circa the early 90s, maybe they need a heroes reborn restart of all main x-books.
i hate the direction everything's gone and the stories all being caught almost in stasis, unable to proceed further as they have to wait until higher ups decide it's time for the next big event to come back into play, but then they decide to throw another event in before that happens, so really it's just writers having little freedom and having to build up to what they're needed for next.
That said, I'm happy to celebrate the good things about the past few years. Several of the New-New Mutants from DeFilippis and Weir's run were very amiable characters, and that was a solid book. Kyle and Yost came along, shunted all the previous story aside and made it their own, planting the seeds of their plans for grimdark domination. Annoying, but entertaining. Carey's X-Men stories have been one of the highlights since M day, And of course Peter David's X-Factor was fantastic until about a year ago.
I think Peter David's X-Factor's been great for at least the last 9 issues, top of it's form. 37-onwards, and the Layla Millar one-shot, have been the best this book's been.
The SI stuff, and generally the work with Stroman, to 36, was a bit pants. Actually, 25-ish, whenever MC was to then was probably the low point. Since then it's been unremittingly excellent.
Wow. Actually...
Paul, you've not given X-Factor a full review since last August, on thexaxis.com, when you reviewed #34 and the Layla one-shot. I know that Peter David's stopped writing in arcs really, and just is treating it as a proper ongoing series, but you've reviewed 10 issues since then. I'm kinda curious as to what you think of the current set-up
Any chance of an X-Factor full review at some point?
There never seems to be a particularly obvious point to review it.
Upcoming solicits suggest #39-45 are being collected. I've not read #45 yet, but does that seem like a decent point for a review?
The X-men story ultimately has only one of two endings
Civil rights is a journey, not a destination. Prop 10, anyone?
(Prop "X," then)
//Oo/\
...aaaaand I didn't know there already was one.
Flip.
//Oo/\
For fun, then:
A List X Men:
Cyclops (at the center of the X-Universe)
Wolverine (obvious)
Emma Frost (certainly the most popular X-character in 10 years)
Magneto (considered one of the best villains ever)
B List X Men:
Jean Grey (very well-known)
Gambit (still loved in some circles)
Rogue (still loved in some circles)
Beast (well-loved)
Kitty Pryde (well-loved)
Nightcrawler (well-loved)
Deadpool (the movie plus spin-offs; may be moving up even further)
C List X Men:
Iceman (liked but unused)
Angel (liked but unused)
Colossus (liked but often used poorly)
Storm (liked but often used poorly)
Psylocke (liked but often used poorly)
Cable (both liked and reviled)
Madrox (popularity dictated by writer)
Professor X (appreciated but rarely liked)
D List X Men and below:
Everyone else, to varying degrees (Cannonball > Bishop > Havok)
The trouble with the X-Men lies "solely" with everyone concerned - editors and writers and editorial edicts from on high.
I get the impression that most people reading these reviews have been X-fans in the past. We all know the team book DID work - rose tinted glasses aside, those 80s and 90s stories were fun and exciting and had genuine change, even if a lot of it has been reset since then as subsequent writers and editors chose to cherry pick from the grave rather than move forward.
One thing that I feel damages the franchise is this constant "it's a metaphor for minorities" thing. Yes, okay, it's a metaphor - DO something with it. Most recently, the Hellfire Cult "mutie bashing" was ludicrous - they're seriously beating up Wolverine?! I mean... Wolverine?!!! Deadliest man on the planet, member of the Avengers Wolverine?!! The metaphor seems to just be the story now, regardless of the logic it presents. And it's hardly a story at all.
There's a huge difference between using metaphor and subtext within a story.
When Claremont killed the X-Men and moved them to Australia it wasn't a straight riff on "gay bashing" or whatever - it was a super hero comic first and foremost with some social commentary if you cared to look for it.
Just now it seems to be social commentary with negligible plot progression (= Fraction; I've nor read Carey). What's next - mutant Iceman wrestles with the career glass ceiling? Tell me they've not done this since I last looked!
Ultimately, the X-books need one bold writer with a solid grasp of what s/he wants to do with the characters, and an editor who'll back those plays. Grant Morrison sensibly trimmed the team down to five core players and got on with telling stories, and - for better or worse - Mark Millar did the same thing with Ultimate X-Men. Focus on what your story is and just tell it, instead of the constant "metaphors" and the unending reshuffling the team to bring Jean back AGAIN.
The fact we still have a dozen or so X-Men books a month - the very thing Quesada put a halt to when he became EIC - isn't helping, but with the right writers and focus it could be a dozen brilliant books. Instead, it's 12 books I don't even flick through anymore and I really, really tried to enjoy the Brubaker/Fraction restart.
It occurs to me that one possible medium-term direction, cutesy as it might be, would be to take on the idea that there's no progress to be made as directly as possible and literally show the characters reacting to the loss of a struggle they've built their lives around. Mutant history ended, and not in the way anyone expected; it's sort of a Darwinian version of the Great Politics Mess-Up, in which the last ting anyone expected was a world without a Cold War.
With mutants out of the picture and his most recent scheme a failure, would Apocalypse have to pick some other race to in his "fittest" hopes on? Might Hank McCoy pack up and try to become a generally renowned scientist now that X-specific problems are in some sense not important in the bigger historical picture? Does Magneto start trying to end any sort of genocide, not just anti-mutant ideas with his usual blend of overkill and unselfconsciousness? With no more reason to scheme or compromise to keep their struggling minority alive and around, and no more students to teach or futures to kill for, with what do Mystique and Emma busy themselves? Does Exodus decide the anti-mutants were right, his faith now shattered, and become a zealously anti-mutant mutant?
This issue of Legacy seems to have tried the latter interestingly enough, albeit years too late.
I have to say, I completely disagree with your take regarding the metaphor being the problem, Rik, though it is an interesting point and it did give me much to think about.
In my opinion, the discrimination metaphor is the very thing that allows the franchise to stand apart from the others. Remember, the book was doing quite badly when Stan Lee was writing it as an ordinary super-hero comic, and it wasn't until Claremont brought the theme to the forefront that it really found an audience.
By the same token, Morrison's run was all about the metaphor, with the main villain turning out to be an intelligent ameba who opposes all forms of evolution (i.e. change), both in terms of ideas and genetics. As a drug, it even turned other villains (Magneto, Kid Omega) into backward-looking morons, the ultimate expression of what small-mindedness can do to people.
I agree, however, that of late it's seemed like the metaphor has been conflicting with the story, but I think that's more a reflection of the current creative team not having much to say about discrimination or isolation ("Here's what you should know about racism in the world: I don’t know anything about it because I’m from San Francisco and that means I’m better than you").
This was made most obvious to me when Quesada declared that the Decimation was essential because there were so many mutants now they weren’t a minority anymore. Really? I’m pretty sure there are more than 198 black people and Asians in North America, yet that’s hardly stopped some Americans from throwing racial slurs about during the most recent election campaign or my former employer (who’d just got transferred) from asking me to leave my job because “it is an embarrassment for us to have a visibly non-native speaker (i.e. not white) as our senior editor and maybe you should consider that people of your culture aren’t right for this office”. There’s a hell of a big difference between a minority and an endangered species, but Quesada seems to have trouble looking past his own white upper-class male American nose to see that, and I can’t help feeling like he might have snorted some small-minded ameba himself.
Here’s what might be an interesting idea: instead of shoving every interesting black creator on Black Panther, how about putting one of them on one of the X-men books, or maybe a woman, homosexual, immigrant, person recovering from a mental illness, anyone who might have something new and personal to say about the core theme of discrimination? Assuming these writers would be as talented as Carey and Brubaker normally are, of course. I’m not here to push some sort of demented comics affirmative action.
I think you really put your finger on it, Rik, when you pointed out the discomfort the book seems to have with its discrimination/isolation analogy. I’m just not sure removing the theme is the best solution so much as maybe finding creators with more interest and insight into the issue.
"his own white upper-class male American nose"
Joe Quesada is Cuban-American, though. Upper class is pushing it, as well (with the best will in the world 
).
The specifics of the X-Men's metaphor, though...it's not enough to simply equate X - AHAHAHA - with Y. You can't just do the Stonewall story or the Kent State story or the "Mother's Against Anti-Mutantism" movie of the week*. You have to deal with the reality of the unreality, and say: what does this all really mean?
Morrison probably did the most with this - the fear and fetishisation of the notion that mutants literally ARE our superiors, our successors, that they HAVE been amassing a power base within mainstream society, while never letting go of the inescapable truth that, hey, "peoples is peoples," and that calling someone "superior" doesn't necessarily make it so.
I was reading some small reminiscences about the Stonewall riots today, and something Peter Tatchell said really stunned me (and I never thought I'd type that). For someone like him, equality was never going to be enough. Mainstream was never meant to be the goal. Smashing the status quo - creating a new paradigm - THAT's the goal of people like Tatchell. Finding a new way to work the world. And...
...d'you know what? I think Morrison already covered that ground, as well.
BASTARD.
//Oo/\
* - I got no further than one sentence into that middle-aged mother's meeting support group comic idea when Epic came around. Thank GOD. "HEY, KIDS: IT'S CALENDAR GIRLS MEETS THE X-MEN!" Ooh: spicy!
"Joe Quesada is Cuban-American, though. Upper class is pushing it, as well (with the best will in the world)."
I stand corrected. Thanks, Matthew. With a name like Quesada, I really should have known better. My apologies to white upper-class American males everywhere. Well, there you go: if my own racist paradigms are any indication, I think there's still room in the market for an interesting comic about discrimination. (Completely glossing over the fact that all this proves is that there's plenty of room for me to grow. Heh.)
Yeah, I really feel there's still plenty to do with the discrimination angle as long a they, as you pointed out, Matthew, find something sincere and original to say about it instead of just paying it lip service with tired clichés.
Hey Dimitri,
Thanks for disagreeing with me because basically you agreed with what I was TRYING to say but had muddled through badly.
My concern with the X-Men is that lately it's JUST "the metaphor", rather than being explored as a subtext. I think Morrison and Claremont both took the minority metaphor and tried to explore new themes and *tell stories* with it as a backdrop, rather than bolt this race or that sexuality story to it and say "mutant" in place of whatever it was. Morrison, especially, just treated it so casually, he had so much background fun with minority groups becoming mainstream, etc. His felt like a living world with mutants in it, not a sequence with an "issue" to cover.
Claremont's stories were never "the metaphor", they were stories that worked within it as he saw fit. He didn't seem to be bound down to it.
I think this whole shift in the focus of the concept may have come about with the X-Men movies, where the civil rights metaphor was used very well to fuel the punching and eye-beam-zapping blockbuster action.
However, the more the metaphor comes to the fore at the expense of the stories, the more I'd rather read about real minority oppression. (of course, not that I'm condoning it or looking to revel in it!)
With brief ref to your other points (all interesting and well made), I'd certainly love to see Christopher Priest write the X-Men. First and foremost because he tells a great story, second because he does have things to say about race and its portrayal in the media. And one gets the feeling Priest wouldn't obsess about reviving Jean Grey... which just really, really bores me as a story line.
Omar - I think that's a fairly splendid (set of) idea(s)!
It occurs to me, given the current locale of X-Men stories if it would not be interesting to flip the metaphor on its head. Surely there are mutants out there who feel patronized by becoming the mayor of San Fransisco's pet issue. Given the way Magneto is generally written, you'd think that he'd have some rather choice things to say about becoming part of the general SF liberal agenda (not to try and pin any political stance upon Magneto, but rather to say that he's not one to accept being an 'issue' rather than being more important than a popular initiative).
Christopher Priest would be an excellent choice for an X-Men writer that could have a potentially interesting use for the central metaphor. However I seem to recall that he doesn't wish to write comics anymore.
Interesting thougths.
But does the minority metaphor even make sense any longer after Decimation? The remaining mutants can´t even fill a stadium. Or a prison. They just don´t qualify as a minority any longer.
After a long hiatus I read some of the current X-Men, and while Carey just can´t grab me as a superhero writer - loved his Lucifer though -, I thought Legacy a nice book. It tried for closure and that in a subtle way instead of the crass hatchet job way Marvel is so enamoured with. It doesn´t try to be "relevant" which is nice change for once.
Ummm... This issue DOES have a title.
"Retreat"
It's about four pages in between two panels. But don't quote me on that. I'm doing this from memory because I didn't buy the issue.
Surely there are mutants out there who feel patronized by becoming the mayor of San Fransisco's pet issue.
I would so love to read that, Warren. I'm not sure, though, the comics company that brought us the ever (amusingly) condescending Razorback is capable of such self-awareness.
And one gets the feeling Priest wouldn't obsess about reviving Jean Grey... which just really, really bores me as a story line
Oh, now I see what you mean, Rik. I guess that it's not so much that the books are *just* the metaphor right now (after all, neither Carey's Legacy issues or Fraction's Sisterhood really deal with this theme) but that when they do touch on it (Prop X), it's about as subtle as a tractor and feels terribly shoehorned. As you wrote, the metaphor is more efficient as subtext.
You know, I think I'd be terribly amused if someone revealed that the Sisterhood were snorting the Kick drug when hatching their plan to revive Jean Grey once again, thus explaining why they decided to rehash such a pointless, backward idea in the first place instead of embracing a new idea. Kind of a meta thing, if you will.
I like the Mutant-Minority thing when it's done well, as subtext or direct. But after Civil War it's just too scary to think that the wrong writer could come along and pull something like that out again. Fraction's writing is what it is, but I can appreciate how he handles the political subtext... And I love the little X-Club concept.
Jonny K: I love X-Factor, and after reading it I love Peter David. But I felt that it peaked with that issue with Rahne leaving, that issue alone being one of my favourite standalone issues post-M-day.
The Stroman art really brought the book down, although the writing quality was still there. I understand if low sales=bad artist, but surely they could get someone better than that...
The Layla one shot was great, Ruby is great; the birth was another immense peak even higher than Rahne's departure, but the book's all over the place and incoherent. Longshot and Darwin haven't been given a proper place, there's too much going on in this arc with the group split into three groups; Layla lost some charm in the age jump, and the Layla/ Jamie romance came way too sudden to not feel slightly creepy, even though we knew it was coming...
Anyway, this is a Legacy review, and a comment shouldn't be this long, sorry guys...
I'm not really big on the whole X-Men thing, but I read X-Men Legacy(I'm big on Xavier). It seems to me that the X-Men do not have defined individual goals(They're Mutants dammit!). See the Avengers members has had a very defined set of goals for being an Avenger and being a hero(which are mutually exclusive). For the most part the X-Men members seem to only want to survive(M-Day) and that's same idea been implied since issue 1. However, Stan knew they need another goal to keep people interested(protect a world that fears and hate them). See if they had members with parallel goals which ultimately lead them to the same conclusion that being X-Men offered; that they can do the more good for themselves and those they care for by being a X-Men as apposed to going at it alone. You'll have something your average hero comic reader can grab on to in a impulse buy.
As Paul has said there is no forward momentum. M-Day didn't create that maybe the writers didn't respond or they thought they did but there concerns crept into every book and its lasted a long time. And, that ambiguity causing a stir among the fans I'm optimistic however, Carey has been rocking Xavier's story. When he comes back to lead the X-Men he'll be the marble in the plastic bag pulling the X-Men forward(as was always his role). Unlike before Xavier has a lot of penance to pay and now he just has to do what Exodus has to do and that is find a purpose for his men. Surviving in not living.
I'm just waiting to find out where to pick up Xavier's story after Legacy.
Not sure anyone cares (probably not), but I think I've finally figured out my X-Team of choice. Cornell/Kirk. That team is darn good, and if you put them on a book like Uncanny X-Men, sales won't fall too hard based on them being unknowns because it's a flagship title. It only has the chance to go up.
With that said, I would still like it best if Fraction found his footing, so I'm all for giving him time. While changing up the art team, of course.
I think the whole metaphor issue has plenty of opportunity left within it, but the X-writers never seem to have any take on it beyond throwing Reverend Stryker, a Proposition X, etc. against the heroes - and this now bores me to tears.
There are, as people have posted here, many other very intelligent ways to go about it. Marvel just seems determined to never show them to us.
"Days of Future Past" is an especially good example of using the metaphor to tell a story, and that's something that seems to be missing just now. In Days of Future Past, mutants are hunted, imprisoned or executed for being "deviant" . We can all see the parallels to how minority groups have been treated and demonised in the past, and the story builds on that to paint a bleak future of intolerance.
But, Days of Future Past is a good superhero science fiction story that employs the metaphor. When ten-year-old-me read it I didn't think "Oh, yes - racial cleansing. That's very astute of Mr Claremont" ... I thought "Crikey, Wolverine just got atomised by a gigantic robot! And there's a graveyard full of superhero tombstones! Awesome!"
It's all in the ability to tell a story and employ metaphor as subtext.
(That's not to suggest the current writers aren't capable, I just haven't seen the metaphor used well in recent issues that I've read.)
M-Day in theory is a good idea. Marvel just over did it in terms of how few mutants should be left. Hell, if they had left the number of mutants in the thousands, instead of the hundreds, it could've worked better.
And Fraction's run so far, despite some good issues here and there, has got to be one of the most disappointing runs ever. Given all the hype, I expected better. Can we re replace him with Carey already?
Commenting by HaloScan
