The Suit: Heather or Mac?

[Legerd]

Like my comic history teacher said :"what made Tintin so popular was that every young man (or women) could identify with Tintin. The is great to be a reporter and to go around the world, we never much about him, his parents if he had any, is family, he never got any sexuality, never knew is age... But what made the book interesting was the secondary characters, Captain Haddock, Professor Tournesol, Les Dupont et Dupont without forgetting La Castafiore.

I think you nailed it right there Sylvie. It's not so much about who is iconic but rather who you can identify with. When I discovered the X-men comic, like many others, I was instantly enthralled by it. Here were people I could identify with, not because they had super powers and routinely saved the universe (although I do and I have ) but because they were flawed, outcast and misunderstood. For them life was a daily uphill struggle with the occassional plateau where they found time for a game of basketball or hanging out at the malt shop. That's exactly what my life felt like back then; that is what I found so attractive about the comic.
With AF there was only one person I could identify with and that was Mac. No, I'm not a scientist, never been married and have not been anywhere close to dying (yet), rather it was his trustingness, fairness and naivete I associated with. He's a nice guy who felt obligated to take on a role he knew he wasn't ready for, and time after time suffered for it. He wasn't arrogant, just the opposite, and he had a conscience that weighed on him when things went wrong. I would trust a person like that to wear the Guardian suit, becasue I know he would take the role seriously and would never abuse his position.

PS: I loved reading about Tintin too. Also Asterix and Obelix.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Hey...John Byrne himself said that he found Mac to be the least interesting character in AF...

Hmm. "Byrne said"... I was gonna say something snide (namely that our thoughts on the dullness that is Mac have been revoked just on that statement), but since that would be classified as creator bashing, I'll withhold...

I hear you...the man frequently puts, not just his foot in his mouth, but his whole leg....but on this point...I have to agree with him...Mac is just dull.

Dana

[syvalois]

[quote]

With AF there was only one person I could identify with and that was Mac.

In AF, I like the twins because they where from Québec, but never really could identify with them because I rarely see that fact reflected correctly. I was left with heather, who I connected more and even more after reading Byrne run.

PS: I loved reading about Tintin too. Also Asterix and Obelix.

Actually, I like Astérix better than Tintin. Also like to see the animated movies at ciné-cadeaux every christmas. My christmas is not completed with it! :P And the last movie with Deppardieu and Alain Chabbat is hilarious

[varo]

i don't see how mac can NOT be viewed as dull when you consider who was on the team at the time:

aurora: schizo

northstar: first openly gay marvel character (granted not at the time) former terrorist

shaman: former medicine chief now master of mystics.

snowbird: demi-godess.

sasquatch: former pro football player now hanging out in the body of a great beast (again, i know at the time of macs death it wasn't acknowledged)

puck: little person

marrina: alien.

can't imagine why mac was viewed as dull compared to the rest.

[kozzi24]

My feeling is that the iconic nature of a character has little to do with exposure: a character can be created in very iconic format and be little known. Utilizing the hidden language that creates that type of character, however, can result in a much stronger presence.

People need to see the character to recognize him. Take the TV shows of Icon, America Icon and their ilk...they're trying to make someone a superstar, in a recognizable, celebrity way. There is the Icon of the strong brave hero who can fly above the masses. Throw a flag on their costume, and the iconic stature on sight increases.

It's my contention that it is precisely that, the utilization of that unspoken language, that allowed for Alpha's initial explosion of popularity. They had the combination of archetypical personalities and abilities, combined with the more iconic elements of visual design, to automatically launch the characters into icon status. I believe this holds true for every member (or nearly every member) of the original team.

That's pretty much a mirror to my thoughts. Characters that serve as a focal point, a solid lynchpin for a story, often pale in comparisson to other characters in the story: a character that transcends heroic to become larger than life may inspire others, but invariably leaves the audience somewhat distant. Secondary characters are the perfect solution to this: you can get more milage in exploring a story with them, play with more flaws, and take more risks in having them likeable -- which automatically means they'll be hated by some.

The visual is a major part of iconic status, not only in comics, but in other media. But the characters must be presented storywise to be iconic. You consider Batman iconic by the mold of being the strong smart brave central hero, and I think the visual and story of him having a smaller helper does add to that. Spider-Man and Wolverine are often considered iconic in a popular sense, but in broader traditional standards that transcend the comic genre of icon standards, they are not, because they are not also archetypes. They are icons because of exposure. If Heather was clearly seen as team leader in the Guardian battlesuit in most other outlets such as the 'Repo Man' cartoon, she would reach the iconic standard. The character seems not allowed to fill that role by Marvel's Powers That Be.

We cite Wonder Woman as iconic. She is, in the warrior woman archetype. By the archtype, Shanna the She-Devil and Red Sonja are also archetype...but they lack the popularity and instant recognition as a character to be ICONIC to the general population.

If you think she cannot do that, blame goes to the writer for not writing her in the strong smart brave mold. She usually has been written in that way, and without crossing the line to make her seem threatening to insecure males.

If she has the visual depiction and the proper writing and the exposure that leads to recognition, there is no reason she cannot be ICONIC. But because she is a warrior woman whose power stems from technological means, she is far less archetypical.

I think that there's a reason for that. As you've pointed out, Heather's had more face time in the comics. By the logic of exposure, as you've pointed out above, she should undoubtedly be perceived as the more iconic, and so more used, if these theories hold true. Yet every time Alpha merchandise or guest appearances pop up...

Yes, also by the powers that be. There have been merchandise and appearances of Heather as Guardian from time to time. But the powers that be at Marvel seem to dictate Alpha Fliht in OTHER appearances and forms (YET NEVER IN THEIR OWN SERIES!!) be the team from V1#1 (usually minus Marinna), and most other merchandise seems stemmed from this single source. That's laziness or being cheap with the research time, all corporate decisions that do more to detract from Heather by her typical absence than to truly boost Mac.

Superheroes find a way to circumvent the two choices, finding a better, third path that a normal hero cannot achieve. Spiderman doesn't let MJ or the cable trolley drop -- he saves them both. Superman doesn't surrender the alien refugee, nor does he allow the earth to be destroyed.

Unlike Alpha, Spider-Man and Superman never had Bill Mantlo writing them with the agenda of specifically tearing down the original version and creating something of his own in its place. Snowbird did not die as part of her characterization, and Heather was not the killer as part of Heather's characterization. Snowbird died strictly as a plot device to eliminate one of the Byrne characters and as means of bringing back Alpha's most recognizatble and generally most popular character--A Sasquatch, but this one white, so it would be known NOT to be the same Byrne character.
In good serial form, Mac's death drove the story for a time. Snowbird's did not drive the story, it simply allowed the immediate return of Mantlo's Sasquatch.

Some people, irredeemable cynics imho , claim that the superhero genre is nothing more than an adolescent power fantasy gone on too long. I think this is utter tripe. The genre isn't a power fantasy: the fantasy is altruism, and the dream of a better world. Power is just the fantastic vehicle by which the fantasy is lived out. (the comics of the 90's being an exception)

The superhero genre is more than one thing, and power fantasy IS a part of it. The fantastic sense of wonder is the science fictional element. A good recent example is Bruce Jones' run on the Hulk. Some of the stories were quite good, even tho I personally believes it was written too much as trade and left entire-issue gaps without seeing the hero in true action. But what hurt the title during his run is that the Hulk is the ultimate power fantasy, and when that element is removed from the Hulk, the character and title are just not the same. I respond to the cynics' highbrow disdain of power fantasies not as that they are wrong, but that the genre is so much MORE. I usually loan out AF V1#1, AF V1#7-8, a trade of Kraven's Last Hunt and X-Men #183 as examples. None are without power fantasies, but all have SOOOOOOOO much more.

The key to superheroes is that they succeed where normal people would fail. Where they come back down to earth, become mortals again, is in their personal lives. When the two mix, they are stripped of potency.

Such as Heather crying over the death of Snowbird and her family...Heather removed the mask. She did not cry as Vindicator, she cried as Heather Hudson.

She has the spirit, but not the ability. Mac has both. While it might be argued that Heather's had more face time in the comics, it could also be argued that Mac has had little time where he hasn't been used as a ham-fisted plot device. He's more iconic, but lacks proper development.

You seem to rely solely on the "iconic" element. We are talking role of a hero, not fixing the suit...How does Heather lack the ability, Ed?

Which is kind of funny, 'cause I always really liked Captain America and Superman as well. Hell, Superman's my favourite character, and my dream job.

I've always found Superman extremely boring, even when written by top creators. Cap can be far more appealing, when he is being handled by a good writer and being presented as something other than a one-dimensional archetype. Cap is also a good lesson in some of the differences between archetype and icon status too. Can you picture Cap without his shield? The shield serves the archtype role as strong smart brave warrior. As a visual icon, the shield is as an important facet of the character as the colors. But there's some very subliminal propaganda in it to depict America as defender rather than oppressor. Cap as an icon is seen very differently outside North America, and that is based solely on visual, not literary convention.

That's how many of the older heroes worked, and in recent attempts to bring them to television or movies, the most successful attempts have utilized the same (or similar) principles. Wolverine's the insanely popular one, but where would the story be going without Xavier's compassion and cool reasoning? Spider-Man's the hero, Parker's the perpetual hard-luck case, but we see the most dramatic character elements in Harry, MJ, and the villains.

Except for the bond between Pete and May, the failure of his powers due to his self doubt, the sacrifices he was enduring in being hard luck because he was Spider-Man...wow, and there's more, just from the second movie. Sorry Ed, I think you're wrong there, and I think it has to do with Spider-Man being an iconic character only in the popular cultural sense, but not in an archetypical sense. If you had used Superman in that example from the 1970's movies, you'd be dead-on, because Superman is iconic both senses of the term.

So should the day come that I get a crack at this dream project, and I'm doing something that has the lot of you rolling your eyes, you'll know I'm aiming for the target that's lead to longevity and strength for other franchises.

No fault to the ambition, but geez Ed, that sounds DANGEROUSLY like Scott Lobdell. Aim to tell good stories for the characters on your plate and let the franchises worry about themselves. Claremont and Byrne's X-Men was not being written to support or build a franchise, a franchise was built because they concentrated on the stories they were writing and did spectacular work.

[kozzi24]

there is a poll on the suit question at
http://forum.alphaflight.net/viewtopic.php?t=741

[Northcott]

can't imagine why mac was viewed as dull compared to the rest.

The word you're looking for is "stable" or "sane".

It's the bad-boy syndrome. Immature girls chase the bad boy, because he seems so much more interesting than the nice boy. Immature boys pine after the girl who's chasing the bad boy, for similar dysfunctional reasons.

I think it was Wilde (though I'm probably wrong), who observed that men are odd in their desire to be seen as more wicked than they truly are. The temptation in fiction is to automatically go with the flawed creation, since it is, by default, less "boring" -- the flaws being more obvious. In real life, our society has used mass communication to try and strip the veneer away from heroes; tearing at them and digging into every crevice of their lives until they've been torn down. There's a systematic brutality that society inflicts upon those who rise above the norm; a sort of mass knee-jerk reaction that seeks societal self-validation through the degredation of those who dare succeed.

Heroes who aren't dysfunctional enough are seen as boring. The solution in fiction is usually to either break them and drag them down (which most writers attempt to do -- look at how Mantlo disassembled Alpha), or to provide challenges in thier lives that highlight their human condition. The latter seems the most productive to me, but few writers go that course.

[Northcott]

The visual is a major part of iconic status, not only in comics, but in other media. But the characters must be presented storywise to be iconic. You consider Batman iconic by the mold of being the strong smart brave central hero, and I think the visual and story of him having a smaller helper does add to that. Spider-Man and Wolverine are often considered iconic in a popular sense, but in broader traditional standards that transcend the comic genre of icon standards, they are not, because they are not also archetypes.

Spider-Man, perhaps not. Wolverine, on the other hand, definitely is. The fascination with the connection between man and animal has persisted since the dawn of time. Whether as feral being, wildman, or hunter, Wolverine spans some very old archetypes.

They are icons because of exposure. If Heather was clearly seen as team leader in the Guardian battlesuit in most other outlets such as the 'Repo Man' cartoon, she would reach the iconic standard. The character seems not allowed to fill that role by Marvel's Powers That Be.

They are also icons because of their nature. Exposure does not an icon make. I contend that there are reasons why the PtB at Marvel are conflicted on the public depiction of Alpha.

We cite Wonder Woman as iconic. She is, in the warrior woman archetype. By the archtype, Shanna the She-Devil and Red Sonja are also archetype...but they lack the popularity and instant recognition as a character to be ICONIC to the general population.

Much of the population are also incapable of describing or naming various types of fish. They still know one when they see it. Red Sonja may lack recognition, but she is no less iconic because of it. People see the image, they have an immediate expectation of it.

If you think she cannot do that, blame goes to the writer for not writing her in the strong smart brave mold. She usually has been written in that way, and without crossing the line to make her seem threatening to insecure males.

A sexist assertation. It may be that instead, since the character was never depicted as having certain traits, that she was never instilled with them as a sense of continuity. She lacks the self-contained nature to achieve the status accorded to the strongest of contemporaries in her genre.

That's laziness or being cheap with the research time, all corporate decisions that do more to detract from Heather by her typical absence than to truly boost Mac.

It's inconsistent marketing and lack of brand reinforcement. It absolutely boggles my mind, and I wish I could figure out why it's done. I'm left with the feeling that there's some marketing suit somewhere, left banging his head on his desk in frustration.

The superhero genre is more than one thing, and power fantasy IS a part of it.

At best, a means to an end. There is certainly a fantasy of power there, but the heart of the fantasy lies in what is achieved with it, not the power itself.

There's also a line of thought that decries the notion of altruism; the stereotypical example being those who claim that Mother Theresa only did what she did because it made her feel better about herself. My thought on this is that if people are constantly looking down, they'll only ever see dirt.

But what hurt the title during his run is that the Hulk is the ultimate power fantasy, and when that element is removed from the Hulk, the character and title are just not the same.

The Hulk was not created as a power fantasy, but a nightmare: Kirby had issues with his own rage. The Hulk was a loss of control; reason consumed in rage, and the devastating effects that has on one's life.

I'd said: "The key to superheroes is that they succeed where normal people would fail. Where they come back down to earth, become mortals again, is in their personal lives. When the two mix, they are stripped of potency."

Such as Heather crying over the death of Snowbird and her family...Heather removed the mask. She did not cry as Vindicator, she cried as Heather Hudson.

No, by that point she'd already failed. She'd had to resort to killing a team-mate to achieve her end. That's where the potency fails. Mind you, that's not a failing of the character, but of the writing. Heather's personal life and her heroic life were continuously blended. There was no separation.

You seem to rely solely on the "iconic" element. We are talking role of a hero, not fixing the suit...How does Heather lack the ability, Ed?

We've gone around that merry-go-round several times: We're not talking about the role of a hero, but the role of a superhero. Someone above and beyond. That's where Heather lacks the ability. The world is full of heroes. What allows the suspension of disbelief in superhero tales to work is that they are not merely heroic, but beyond the human norm in their capacity. Heather is not.

To argue that Mac should use the suit because he created it is a thin arguement... but it's one commonly used in the genre. The heart of the genre is, after all, based around the concept of direct use of ability through an active means for bettering the world. So while thin, it fits.

Heather, on the other hand, has no ability that is not matched or surpassed by any number of cops, firefighters, or soldiers. As soon as Heather dons the suit, the question becomes "why her"? There is no answer to that, either in terms of the (thin) conventions of the genre, and especially not in terms of realism.

I've always found Superman extremely boring, even when written by top creators. Cap can be far more appealing, when he is being handled by a good writer and being presented as something other than a one-dimensional archetype.

I think therein we have a substantial part of the root of our differences. Many people complain that these two characters are boring, yet without them as lynchpins of the Avengers or JLA, those titles tend to slow down and eventually slack off in sales. A baseline must always be held for the others to be compared to.

Except for the bond between Pete and May, the failure of his powers due to his self doubt, the sacrifices he was enduring in being hard luck because he was Spider-Man...wow, and there's more, just from the second movie. Sorry Ed, I think you're wrong there, and I think it has to do with Spider-Man being an iconic character only in the popular cultural sense, but not in an archetypical sense.

In that we see more intense dramatic elements from Harry, MJ, and the villains? It's debateable... but you're right. Peter had a rough go of it.

You seem to refer to popular culture icons in an almost "less than" sense, as if it makes them somehow less powerful. I may be misreading it, but this is the second time you've done so. I don't see new icons or archetypes as less powerful for their recent transformations, but rather on par with some of the older types on which they're based. This modern era of mass communication has allowed for swift development of ideas, and those that resonate shouldn't be discounted.

No fault to the ambition, but geez Ed, that sounds DANGEROUSLY like Scott Lobdell. Aim to tell good stories for the characters on your plate and let the franchises worry about themselves. Claremont and Byrne's X-Men was not being written to support or build a franchise, a franchise was built because they concentrated on the stories they were writing and did spectacular work.

Byrne's Alpha work may not have been, but I guarantee that you're incorrect on both Claremont and Byrne's other work. The continuation and strength of the franchise is always something that a comic writer must keep in mind. If they forget it, they're reminded quite directly by their editor. It's far from the whole equation, but it's undoubtedly a part of it, and remains so for any successful ongoing series. There are always exceptions, but they tend to fizzle and fall by the wayside.

As for the Lodell comparison: I have sincere doubts that the health of the franchise was kept in mind. Had that been the case, then Marvel's marketing of fringe products would have been in line with the relaunch of the series.

That was both an unfair and terribly inaccurate brush to try and paint me with, Kozz.

[Northcott]

Edit: Bloody triple post, in spite of continuous white-page server errors. Bloody hell. Never mind the write time, it took damn near half an hour to sort this thing out.

[Ben]

Edit: Bloody triple post, in spite of continuous white-page server errors. Bloody hell. Never mind the write time, it took damn near half an hour to sort this thing out.

sorry 'bout that. I've got it in the works to fix these problems up, just taking longer than anticipated.

Ben

[Northcott]

Don't sweat it, Ben -- it was a statement of general frustration, not meant to be aimed at you. Being admin of a message board is a considerable task, and I've no intention of criticizing.

[cmdrkoenig67]

You seem to rely solely on the "iconic" element. We are talking role of a hero, not fixing the suit...How does Heather lack the ability, Ed?

We've gone around that merry-go-round several times: We're not talking about the role of a hero, but the role of a superhero. Someone above and beyond. That's where Heather lacks the ability. The world is full of heroes. What allows the suspension of disbelief in superhero tales to work is that they are not merely heroic, but beyond the human norm in their capacity. Heather is not.

To argue that Mac should use the suit because he created it is a thin arguement... but it's one commonly used in the genre. The heart of the genre is, after all, based around the concept of direct use of ability through an active means for bettering the world. So while thin, it fits.

Heather, on the other hand, has no ability that is not matched or surpassed by any number of cops, firefighters, or soldiers. As soon as Heather dons the suit, the question becomes "why her"? There is no answer to that, either in terms of the (thin) conventions of the genre, and especially not in terms of realism.
.

Not everyone asks that question, Ed. Not everyone feels the need to disect everything they read.

Dana

[HappyCanuck]

There seems to be some contention about the definition of 'iconic', and how it may or may not apply to Heather.

i·con·ic
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or having the character of an icon.
2. Having a conventional formulaic style. Used of certain memorial statues and busts.

icon (REPRESENTATION)
noun [C]
a very famous person or thing considered as representing a set of beliefs or a way of life:
Marilyn Monroe and James Dean are still icons for many young people.

iconic
adjective FORMAL
John Lennon gained iconic status following his death.

This should help our primary debators decide once and for all if Heather really IS 'iconic'.
(Not really adding anything - just offering ammunition .)

[Northcott]

Not everyone asks that question, Ed. Not everyone feels the need to disect everything they read.

Dana

Everyone dissects to some degree; it's required for basic comprehension and understanding of implication without direct exposition. All that varies is the degree. Ensuring that something functions on a micro level (the engine) helps ensure that it functions on the macro (the car).

Taken to one extreme, of the adult fan that's seeking "realism" in super-hero comics (why, God, why?!?) it becomes a natural extension. In the other extreme, the now rare and nearly extinct child reader, the question boils down to a simple question of: which character is better, the one who just uses the powersuit, or the one who can build it and wear it?

[HappyCanuck]

Taken to one extreme, of the adult fan that's seeking "realism" in super-hero comics (why, God, why?!?)

It's okay God, I'll field this one...

Tho not one of the 'extreme realists', I DO prefer a vague semblance of realism - or at least the presence of plausible realism - in any fiction I read. Many of you know this from my innate obsession with trying to explain superpowers through scientific processes. Many of you have, in answer to my (mostly hypothetical) questions, answered 'just chalk it up to suspension of disbelief'. I can't, it's not in my nature (I'm a true Pisces - analytical AND artistic). For me, I need a plausible explaination to make it half-assed 'real', or else I can't relate to it - intellectually or otherwise. if I can't relate to the subject, characters, etc., then I lose interest. Many have SERIOUSLY questioned how I can enjoy comics if I don't have the 'suspencion of disbelief' protocol prewritten in my psychology (and trust me, to say I 'enjoy' comics is a SEVERE understatement - I LIVE comic books, they are damn-near my whole raison d'etre). To that, I have no answer, save that I do enjoy them - immensely - but at the same time, I NEED to make them make sence, more realistic, or else I have nothing drawing me to them, because I have no common ground with the characters, etc. And I can only relate to something I understand (a commonality in all humanity). [/babble]

(heh, I think I just made an old English teacher roll in her grave with my SEVERELY bad grammar...)