Quote:
Originally Posted by kozzi24
I see it as debate rather than argument...we both seem to know we're talking about literary characters and conventions.
I've spent too long on aggressive message boards. I expect any disagreement, no matter how civil or thoroughly thought-out, to degrade into mud-flinging by now. :)
Quote:
In my opinion, Marvel has only three truly "iconic" female heroes: Storm, as "weather goddess", Pheonix as "Earth mother, both creator and destroyer of life" and Sue Storm in the context of being the air spirit in context to the "earth fire and water spirits represented by Thing, Torch and Reed. There may be more, but I haven't consciously connected to them. If I stretch it a bit, I could say that Wasp could approach iconic or archetypical...but not in any positive way. Her flirtatiousness could be likened to original sin, while her power is that to get smaller in the eyes of men.
A fan once pointed out the elemental correspondences to Stan Lee, expecting some kind of answer in regard to a query on symbolism he'd made. Instead, he got a reaction of surprise from Lee. He'd never seen the correspondence before. :)
I'd be tempted to mark Phoenix down as a destroyer -- no Earth Mother. Purely celestial. More along the lines of Kali-ma; the destroyer who makes way for new things. Her power rarely created, but often ended.
I think that playing Wasp up with those elements could well end her relevance as a character; it would be like throwing her back to the 60's (when Sue's chief power seemed to be to turn invisible and wait for the boys to rescue her). Wasp hit her stride when played up very similar to the preferred vision of Heather, but with a more playful streak.
How's that for getting off track? :) I agree, though; strong archetypes are rarely used with female characters in comics. I think DC has a much better track record on that front, but the unfortunate truth is that many writers simply don't know what to do with an archetypical character the moment that the pattern is grafted onto a female form... which is just bloody sad.
Quote:
I think Heather is LESS likely to drop the suit for purely parental reasons.
Heather came from a large family, and that family took in Elizabeth Twoyoungman seemingly without hesitation. Heather's background is thus more of a "tribal" atmosphere of an extended family that helps each other out a lot more than we North Americans generally see these days.
Speaking as someone that comes from a huge extended family, I'd say that matter has little impact on whether or not she'd stay in the suit. It doesn't make her less likely to drop the suit.
Quote:
We know little of Mac's family background, so little that we're left to assume that he was either (A) the only child of single parents or (B) not from this time at all, but someone who came back from the future to provide humanity--and very likely Canada specifically--the advanced technology of his battlesuit.
Oddly enough, I think I've done more to flesh him out for my little fanfic comic project than all the writers of Alpha Flight combined. Never thought of it in that light before. What a bloody shame.
Quote:
I agree entirely with that. If you want to follow Dana's pattern of Alpha as family (cringe...lol) Heather's the Mom home with the kids--and just look how well the kids get along when left on their own, such as the assembly in V1#12...lol). She's the one setting them straight, making them clean their rooms and doing their homework. I just don't see Heather as a "wait till your father gets home" kind of Mom...she'll deal with things on the spot. Mac would probably come home from a hard day on the lab, get an appraisal of the family day over dinner and probably retire to his study while Heather puts the kids to bed. Heather IS more reactive, especially when she has a goal in mind, and a great part of their relationship background was that Mac was pretty blissful, aloof and inattentive, enough that the relationship only developed because of Heather's pursuit.
I had a very different impression: that the relationship wasn't pursued because Heather was underage and Mac would be doing hard time for it. That much was pretty much stated overtly in the stories that explored their early days. As a result, Heather's family was far from pleased that she married Mac.
I've never seen Mac as aloof and inattentive: if anything the man is very emotionally involved in what transpires around him, and extremely idealistic. As a parental figure, I see him as being more permissive; more likely to discuss and use logic to sway someone than to simply lay down the law and say "it's my way or the highway". In a leadership role he may be more direct, but my parental impression of him is different.
Quote:
I think the sexism that was referred to earlier was more simple in pointing to Mac as generally more "iconic". Basically, the literary theme that does fall along the gender lines that I refer to is kind of an accurate dig at my own country, that the US all too often exhibits Alpha male aggression.
And there's the trap of the paradigm; defining national identity by stereotyped gender roles innately leads to a sexist bias in character definition. Though I do see your point. :)
But when it comes to Alpha, being a proud, flag-waving Canadian, I don't necessarily want to see my nation, or the team that represents them, as being necessarily defined in contrasting definition with the USA. That's a mistake that many Canadians also make, as our national identity is more subtlety than trumpet blare. The elements of shared ideals are silently understood, almost a whisper, that makes it in odd turns easier to define by pointing to something more brash and saying: "See that? That's all fine and well, but it's not what we are." Much like trying to define love or bravery, it's a sense of something rather than a proclaimation.
To that end, I'd love to see the team, in and of itself, representative of the nation -- without the need to define the nation in the light of the view of others. Let the definition of self come from the self. Let others perceive it as they may.
Quote:
I said "Actually, we're Canadians...Nova Scotia." The dealer's response was, "Oh, that's OK then." And only THEN did he give my boss discounts that are typically routine in that trade.
Could also be a Commonwealth thing. In spite of our having grown as our own nation, there's still a tie of sentimentalitiy with other Commonwealth nations. We even have some shared news programming with Britain and Australia... though only on the CBC.
Quote:
He did make other appearances, such as FF #220 and Contest of Champions...however, these were not active combat missions. Byrne's AF#1 specifically filled in the gaps between the varied appearances
Did he? I was under the impression that the issues were linear, with the first appearing after Alpha's last appearance in another title... revelations of Sas and Aurora's relationship having come from that direction.
Quote:
Prometheus (sp?) didn't CREATE fire, he STOLE it.
Not to be rude, but; what's your point? I don't deny his mythical role, but I didn't mention him, either.
Quote:
Tribal people in non-developed countries would recognize those patterns on a subliminal level, but would not grasp the image of a scientific hero as intuitively.
No, but folklore and myth does recognize the archetype of the hero who utilizes wit, courage, and direct action to succeed: the precursor of the science hero. A new hero for an evolving world.
Whereas the other characters fill other roles: Judd may have great wit and knowledge, but he depends upon physical prowess and combat skill for his triumphs -- he's a warrior. Sas fills the human fascination with superhuman might, the twins with flight and beauty, Snowbird the land and demi-divinity, Marrina with aquatic myth, etc.
In a fictional world where characters of archetypical portrayal and mythic ability roam, the human hero that leads them (much like Jason and the Argonauts) must him or herself be a Marvel. In the context of the modern hero, the evolution of the science hero from traditional folklore roots provides a perfect modern contrast, pulling old myths into a new era. The consummate bridge between old and new.
(You do realize that the geek police are coming for us, even as I type this message, don't you?) ;)
Quote:
I look at the scientific hero more as a relatively moden convention, and most early s/f such as by Wells and Verne specifically did not rely on the scientific hero...there was always a helper or more human POV for the story, such as Bedford to Cavor in Wells' First Men on the Moon. The story could not have happened without Cavor's science, but the more recognizably "archetypical" hero was Bedford. Like you said, "science bores people". It definitely needs a human face, and I think that is precisely why for all its convention and literary symbolism, it falls short of being truly archetypical or iconic.
My memory's foggy: did not the Time Traveller take a more active role? In the pulp era we then have a host of them as the archetype forms; science less feared, and more looked to for answers. Instead of Mary Shelley's pseudo-science inbred with occultism and gone horribly awry in the form of a superhuman monster, we have a superhuman figure in Doctor Savage who is a learned scientist and a modern miracle of human accomplishment.
As you said, science needs a human face. It has, for better or worse, become an ingrained part of the human condition over the centuries, gaining full prominence in the last century. When things go wrong, we now turn to science for answers.
In the fantasy of a super-heroic world, where direct action from iconic heroes representing the fascinations of humanity is a cornerstone of the genre's appeal, it is a natural extension that the science hero take their place as a modern link amongst ancient symbols. Whether from gamma bombs, irradiated spiders, or rockets launched from other planets, most superheroes have at least a touch of science-hero in their origin. They are key to the genre. Disregarding their potency reduces loses some of the genre's heart.