awesome. thx for the input. i was asking more out of curiousity, i have 0 intrest in the comic book industry or getting into it. i was just wondering how a series comes about from concept to monthly title being out on the market.
if only you guys would have got the title. i bet it would still be out. *sigh*
so any chance you and j. torres go back to marvel and say "alright, our turn"
I agree that MML doesn't have the right atmosphere to be leader. That's why I also suggest making him a figure-head character and leaving the leading to Judd or Langkowski.Originally Posted by Barnacle13
As for putting Puck in the suit sans EM generators, I think ppl would get confused easily why this little Guardian dude is just bouncing around without shooting. besides, if you're going that root, might as well put everyone in the suit (not the EM, just the costume), but then you have the same argument we all heard against the team uniforms in AF 104.
Allan 'HappyCanuck' Crocker
"Hey... Philosophers love wisdom, not mankind."
- Stephen Pastis, Pearls Before Swine
Short answer: The waiting is killing me. I really hate the indecisive period that precedes getting something done. Depends entirely on circumstance, too. From what I've heard with other folks, it varies case by case. Sometimes the company has something they want to launch and approach certain creators. Sometimes it's the other way around.
*shrug* There's no profit in going down that path of speculation. Might be, might not. Best to let it lie and move on. There are too many "could have beens" in life.if only you guys would have got the title. i bet it would still be out. *sigh*Speculating on them is a killer, and never accounts for all the things that could have happened.
I'd snatch up the opportunity in a minute if it came my way. J... perhaps not so much. From what I understand there's a kind of moritorium on publishing a given book or character for a couple years after it last fails.so any chance you and j. torres go back to marvel and say "alright, our turn"
Ed,
My lineup would have more than just Judd and Sas. I'd have Snowbird and Talisman from V1, also. I'd throw in a V2 (Flex) and V3 (Puck) character to round things out for the newer readers. That coupled with many originals in administrative roles(that clearly demonstrate their competence) and an Omega Flight comprised of ex-Alphans and I think readers old and new could appreciate the title. V3 failed because the writing was poor. Had the originals jetisoned ANAD into space with the Plodex and the stories not improved it still would have failed. Folks might have been excited after #6, but when #7 arrived on the stands....imagine the great waste it would've been for Puck and Snowbird to face off against wax museum dummies. Still sucks for a story line and doesn't keep readers dropping their hard earned cash. V3 might have had a chance if the first arc hadn't been a collosal 6 issue arc that accomplished very little. Most of the life rafts had shoved off with one or two occupants by the end of that arc. The ship was sinking for the rest of us and there wasn't much we could do but listen to the band or jump into the icy waters overboard. Next launch needs to catch fans quick and hold them with at best a 2 issue arc, like going after Wolverine for the murder of Northstar, in the end completely severing ties to Marvels SuperMammal. Follow that with unearthing info on Weapon X or Zodiac and big battles there. Then hit Alpha where it hurts...bring on an ex-Alpha Omega Flight to rip their hearts out (not literally - Sas quit rubbing your chest). Fact is a good story will keep folks coming. Couple it with great art and you're golden!
Tom
Very clearly the head of household and the more organized spouseHeather, from her first appearance in Uncanny X-Men 139, was written to develop as team leader.
Where do you get that impression?
www.kozzi.us
recent publications in M-Brane Science Fiction and the anthology Things We Are Not.
Forthcoming stories in Breath and Shadow, Star Dreck anthology and The Aether Age: Helios.
~I woke up one morning finally seeing the world through a rose colored lense. It turned out to be a blood hemorrhage in my good eye.
Don't you think it's a stretch of conjecture to spin a character moment from the days of compressed storytelling -- depicting someone who was at the time no more than a "flavour" character -- into a long-reaching plot device? Later decisions may have been based on earlier character portrayals, but I don't believe that the character was originally depicted in that manner for that specific purpose.
As for who should get stuck with the desk job at Dept H. I really think Gentry is the natural choice. Between his goverment connections and his obvious compassion for the mutant and metahuman population, Gentry should be the one who reigns in the bearuacratic monster of Dept. H.
I agree, his character was really good for this role. Now the FUNNY thing is that Gentry was originally supposed to be Mac under cover...so I guess by default Mac is the winner of the desk job
Ben
I was aware of potential interpretation of sexism in that statement even when I made it. The difference, in my intent at least, was in keeping with the standards of "literary" and "iconic".Be careful in accusing others of sexism in the same breath that you attribute specific character attributes to one gender. A man can't be less violent and more nurturing than the stereotype?
I'm not out to smack you over the head with the sexism stick here, Kozz, but the above statement holds a great deal of irony.
Several statements have been made by various people that Mac is just "more iconic" than Heather. That's where I find some sexism...because it seems to favor examples that women can only be iconic if they are representing nature, mother nature, motherhood, or original sin...AND I DO NOT THINK THAT WAS ANYONE'S INTENTION. But the statement "Mac is more iconic" is opinion, not fact.
Taken in the literary context of comics, I believe Heather better represents Canada than Mac does, in specific ways she has been characterized in the past, and also in the part of literary contrast as representing Canada as Steve Rogers represents the US. Part of that falls along the gender lines in assigning gender characteristics to the two countries in question, and the two specific countries in question scream for obvious gender identification in their international personas.
But just one specific here...Heather always tried to restrict her team's operations to Canada..in both The Avengers: The Crossing line Russian sub tale, and prior to that in when Sasquatch, Shaman and Aurora crossed the border into the States to rescue Puck. Canada never invaded Iraq, despite their potential interests in doing so
www.kozzi.us
recent publications in M-Brane Science Fiction and the anthology Things We Are Not.
Forthcoming stories in Breath and Shadow, Star Dreck anthology and The Aether Age: Helios.
~I woke up one morning finally seeing the world through a rose colored lense. It turned out to be a blood hemorrhage in my good eye.
She looked at herself in the mirror while holding the suit up in front of her, checking the look out, in Byrne's run. She recognized it as a tool that could better enable her role in the Flight. She was not happy to have Bochs and Jeffries repair it at first, but she donned the suit quite willingly, and the story I remember was one of Heather insisting to wear the suit against the advice of people such as Puck and Wolverine, not a story where all of the Flight was defeated, and their only hope for salvation was for Heather to "temporarily" don the suit and save their butts "that one time."Quote:
There's a matter of consistent characterization here too. Mac NEVER wanted to wear the suit.
Nor did Heather. Mac did, however, finally come to be at peace with his role when he made the switch from Vindicator to Guardian, as suggested by Michael. The "reluctant leader" argument doesn't hold water: both Heather and Mac were of that mindset. It's a staple of fiction (and even myth).
There's a lot less reluctance on Heather's part than Mac's: he did get Sean Benard to wear the prototype in First Flight.
Circa Mac's first return when Mac stated Heather had three times the experience weilding the suit, I don't think you can fall back on protests of Marvel time.
Mac had gone after Wolverine in X-Men #109, and led the team in two consecutive Alpha stories in X-Men. He fought the Ravager in 2-in-1, Tundra in AF #1, the Master in AF 2-4, then Omega Flight in #11-12. That's a total of 7 combat missions.
Heather handled more than that from AF #32 to 90. Probably not three times as much, but her experience was greater by the time the writer wrote that dialogue.
www.kozzi.us
recent publications in M-Brane Science Fiction and the anthology Things We Are Not.
Forthcoming stories in Breath and Shadow, Star Dreck anthology and The Aether Age: Helios.
~I woke up one morning finally seeing the world through a rose colored lense. It turned out to be a blood hemorrhage in my good eye.
Differing interpretations of the same things here, Ed...I think all this substantiates the argument why Mac should be in the office and the lab, not on the battlelines, so he can employ his strengths more and continue this successful line of work.Mac was not surprised that most of Omega turned. Why do you see this as flawed character judgement? If anything, it reinforces strong character judgement: he knew down to a person who was corruptable and who was not. Look which people were in Beta, Gamma, and Alpha respectively.
When finding beings of a given power level, you have a couple choices: You can leave them to run amok in society, or you can put them in a controlled atmosphere and measure the progress of their power even as you attempt to turn them into productive citizens.
Mac may have been a reluctant leader, but you're making a pretty good case for his having had remarkable vision and the wits to institute it. I never would have thought of that example.
[Mac] is the character that had the vision to create a national team, and create a national organization dedicated to a dream akin to Xavier's. He's the character who had the force of personality to hold the original, squabbling Alpha together -- who were, and remain, representative of Canada's different squabbling political factions, which is why they continue to "gel" and feel more right than the various Alpha creations since that time. Roger Bochs and Eugene Judd didn't just follow Mac because of a paycheck: they were inspired by him.
Depending on how it was written...such a line from Mac would certainly make any beaurocrat think twice about the idea they've brought to Mac, especially if they are specifically circumventing Heather. It has a very true ring of office politics that readers would identify with...AND it would be comics with judicious and not overdone repetition, AND characterize the bond between Mac and Heather. Heather, of course, would be using the same line in reverse in other circumstances.Quote kozzi24:
I could see Mac getting what he wanted, repeatedly, with the phrase, "OK, we'll see what Heather has to say about that." I think most people in the government would PREFER to work with Mac.
Quote Northcott: I'd feel really uncomfortable playing up either character like that. I see both as being strong personalities, though with different strengths. Complimenting each other and being stronger together than the sum of the parts -- not one leaning on the other as a crutch.
Just make sure the editor knows where it came from, and the public credit can all be yours.Quote:
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Mac playing househusband anyway. He can do his research with a babysack for little Emma...don't know why, but I've always called the baby that. See the tyke, watching over his shoulder, learning tech before she can walk.
I think that's a beautiful vision. If I ever get the chance, mind if I use it someday?
Archetypes can be useful, but must they be followed exactly in every title. Alpha has quite a few other archetypes, much more ingrained in the human consciousness than such a modern archetype.My opinion is of the opposite slant: to be true to the character, he must be in the suit. He is of the science hero archetype;
So he said at the time, despite some hints to the contrary. His quote I remember was to the effect of "as an artist, making that suit work on a woman boggled the imagination". I don't claim to know either way, but I think it is possible that Byrne may have been trying to defer guesses on future plans. He left it quite possible for Heather to don the battlesuit, and Mantlo provided her with character motivation for donning the suit before she did.If we're to talk about respecting other people's work, and thought being tossed aside, Heather should never have ended up in the suit in the first place...Contrary to your statement above about Heather having been built up as team leader, that development didn't occur until Byrne's solo attempt at Alpha Flight -- and even then he never meant her to don the suit.
www.kozzi.us
recent publications in M-Brane Science Fiction and the anthology Things We Are Not.
Forthcoming stories in Breath and Shadow, Star Dreck anthology and The Aether Age: Helios.
~I woke up one morning finally seeing the world through a rose colored lense. It turned out to be a blood hemorrhage in my good eye.
While you are right, in Heather's case, the pattern holds too well for it to be ignored. That was her first appearance. In her second, she was activating Marrina and Puck as Alphas, so intentional or not, the pattern just holds too true.Don't you think it's a stretch of conjecture to spin a character moment from the days of compressed storytelling -- depicting someone who was at the time no more than a "flavour" character -- into a long-reaching plot device? Later decisions may have been based on earlier character portrayals, but I don't believe that the character was originally depicted in that manner for that specific purpose.
www.kozzi.us
recent publications in M-Brane Science Fiction and the anthology Things We Are Not.
Forthcoming stories in Breath and Shadow, Star Dreck anthology and The Aether Age: Helios.
~I woke up one morning finally seeing the world through a rose colored lense. It turned out to be a blood hemorrhage in my good eye.
Before all else, Kozz, let me say that it's been a pleasure doing this little back and forth with you. It's quite nice to be able to argue a point with someone so thoroughly, and have it kept so even in temperment. Thanks.
I see your point. It just seemed a little odd when juxtaposed with what it was originally set to oppose. I do agree entirely on what you state above, though: frequently that's too often the only route left female characters. Either that or the over-the-top "blow things up" heroic scale, which has become just as much of a stereotype.
For what it's worth, I feel that Mac is more iconic, but not for gender-based reasons. Nor do I believe that Heather's any more likely to drop the suit purely for parenting reasons than Mac is.
Where I see Mac's edge in iconic status is twofold:
1) He's the original. This is entirely a personal prejudice that I admit freely; I have a strong preference for seed characters as opposed to derivatives that appear later. Even as a kid I preferred Jay Garrick over Barry Allen, and Allan Scott over Hal Jordan.
2) Heather doesn't strike me as being much more of a nuturing figure than Mac. There's no real edge in that. Mac, however, is far more representative of Canada's drive in new technology, which has been a part of our national identity since the period in which he was created -- and has remained such since that time. More specifically, representitive of our future, new energy sources, and the growing energy economy.
Mac doesn't just represent Canada since Trudeaumania, but is representative of our present and our future. He not only touches upon the technological and environmental aspects, but accurately reflects the idealism and progressive thinking that have been hallmarks of our nation's identity since the 60's. Heather is reactive, Mac is proactive.
That one I just don't get. Identification by gender is, once again, the sexism that Varo was nailed for. Identification by personality traits seems to be far more productive.Taken in the literary context of comics, I believe Heather better represents Canada than Mac does, in specific ways she has been characterized in the past, and also in the part of literary contrast as representing Canada as Steve Rogers represents the US. Part of that falls along the gender lines in assigning gender characteristics to the two countries in question, and the two specific countries in question scream for obvious gender identification in their international personas.
In that, the contrast with Steve Rogers holds just as well (if not better) with Mac: one a soldier, the other a doctor; one a force to be reckoned with, the other a progressive thinker; both idealists, but with ideals that differ as much as they overlap.
Nope, but we did go for Afghanistan like gangbusters. A soldier from Newfoundland set a new world's record in long-distance sniper accuracy, saving an American platoon by taking out a Taliban mortar team 1.4 miles away. Joined in with Sarajavo(sp?), too.Canada never invaded Iraq, despite their potential interests in doing so
It's not that we're adverse to invading a place. We're just picky about the "why" of it.
Seven printed. At this point we can either assume that he was entirely inactive in between these appearances, or that he saw at least sporadic action in between. The latter seems more plausible to me. They simply didn't have a series, and so any adventures weren't going to be covered.Circa Mac's first return when Mac stated Heather had three times the experience weilding the suit, I don't think you can fall back on protests of Marvel time.
Mac had gone after Wolverine in X-Men #109, and led the team in two consecutive Alpha stories in X-Men. He fought the Ravager in 2-in-1, Tundra in AF #1, the Master in AF 2-4, then Omega Flight in #11-12. That's a total of 7 combat missions.
So I chalk it up to Marvel Time, and the way in which it's often handled by writers. (Ever notice that characters don't age at the same pace?)
Thanks.Just make sure the editor knows where it came from, and the public credit can all be yours.
If someone's going to monkey with an archetype, they'd best understand how it ticks before they take it apart. As the old saying goes: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Archetypes evolve into what they are for a reason.Archetypes can be useful, but must they be followed exactly in every title. Alpha has quite a few other archetypes, much more ingrained in the human consciousness than such a modern archetype.
The science hero isn't all that new, either. S/he's got at least a couple centuries under the collective belt, and far more when you consider the prototype that preceeded him/her: magic being a stand-in for science in fantasy literature and myth.
The science hero may be relatively new, but the theme is old as time itself: Man utilizing special knowledge combined with direct action to better the condition of the human race. When you remove the "direct action" portion of that, you remove the heart of the archetype. People don't write superhero comics about Marie Cure or Albert Einstein. We've got Reed Richards and Tony Stark.
Real science bores people to tears. If you base a character in the more realistic element of labwork, you pretty much kill their appeal.
I see it as debate rather than argument...we both seem to know we're talking about literary characters and conventions.Before all else, Kozz, let me say that it's been a pleasure doing this little back and forth with you. It's quite nice to be able to argue a point with someone so thoroughly, and have it kept so even in temperment. Thanks.
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.I see your point. It just seemed a little odd when juxtaposed with what it was originally set to oppose. I do agree entirely on what you state above, though: frequently that's too often the only route left female characters. Either that or the over-the-top "blow things up" heroic scale, which has become just as much of a stereotype.
I think Heather is LESS likely to drop the suit for purely parental reasons.For what it's worth, I feel that Mac is more iconic, but not for gender-based reasons. Nor do I believe that Heather's any more likely to drop the suit purely for parenting reasons than Mac is.
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.
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.
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.Heather doesn't strike me as being much more of a nuturing figure than Mac.
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. More than many Americans, I do know Canada contributes to the world stage. I also know they do not contribute so aggressively. Funny anecdote from one of the business trips to the UK (I work for an antique buyer)...one dealer in Newark was being rather aloof to my boss as he was asking about trade discounts, etc. The seller asked what part of the states we were from. 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.That one I just don't get. Identification by gender is, once again, the sexism. Identification by personality traits seems to be far more productive.Taken in the literary context of comics, I believe Heather better represents Canada than Mac does, in specific ways she has been characterized in the past, and also in the part of literary contrast as representing Canada as Steve Rogers represents the US. Part of that falls along the gender lines in assigning gender characteristics to the two countries in question, and the two specific countries in question scream for obvious gender identification in their international personas.
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, and his approach to AF--Mac was not in the suit every issue as team members took care of their own adventures, would indicate that he was not proactively seeking adventure.Seven printed. At this point we can either assume that he was entirely inactive in between these appearances, or that he saw at least sporadic action in between. The latter seems more plausible to me. They simply didn't have a series, and so any adventures weren't going to be covered.
So I chalk it up to Marvel Time, and the way in which it's often handled by writers. (Ever notice that characters don't age at the same pace?)
The science hero may be relatively new, but the theme is old as time itself: Man utilizing special knowledge combined with direct action to better the condition of the human race. When you remove the "direct action" portion of that, you remove the heart of the archetype. People don't write superhero comics about Marie Cure or Albert Einstein. We've got Reed Richards and Tony Stark.
Prometheus (sp?) didn't CREATE fire, he STOLE it. I look at archetypoes as universally familiar, as much on subliminal levels as conscious ones, which is part of the reason archetypes are more common in pure fantasy than pure s/f. Lord of the Rings is the best example of archtypes, with reluctant hero, wise old man, skilled helpers, imposing black-clad
villains, etc.) 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. 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.
www.kozzi.us
recent publications in M-Brane Science Fiction and the anthology Things We Are Not.
Forthcoming stories in Breath and Shadow, Star Dreck anthology and The Aether Age: Helios.
~I woke up one morning finally seeing the world through a rose colored lense. It turned out to be a blood hemorrhage in my good eye.
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.
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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 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'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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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
Not to be rude, but; what's your point? I don't deny his mythical role, but I didn't mention him, either.Prometheus (sp?) didn't CREATE fire, he STOLE it.
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.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.
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?)
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.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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
