J-M & AF #2

[Phil]

An interesting post from FVL over at Dale's board:
http://www.daleeaglesham.com/Denizen...51756#msg51756

It was originally supposed to be one of the nuns/priests from the orphanage, but Marvel made us change it to avoid "offending Catholics." So I'm not too happy with a "new" abuser myself.

As for "victimhood" ... remember, heroes are brought low so we can see them rise.

[suzene]

An interesting post from FVL over at Dale's board:
http://www.daleeaglesham.com/Denizen...51756#msg51756

Which...really mitigates the issue very little, if at all, IMO, particularly in the light of the Twitter convo, re: making explicit text out of Byrne's "obvious subtext". Because, unfortunately, even the best case scenario of applying sexual abuse as a root of JM/Aurora's behavior when there's already so much explicit childhood trauma comes off as ****-shaming, while the worst case scenario -- and the first one that leapt to mind because I've have, sad to say, seen it postulated before -- of JM's attitude toward Walter when she comes back to herself being an indication of sexual abuse is so horribly sexist and misogynist that it's the main reason I've been going back over the Byrne run trying to dig up that best-case scenario, because even if I elect to not support the book, I don't want to hate it. Not going to go into detail here, but @betterthanlegos and @twbasketcase do an excellent long-form evisceration of the worst-case over at Tumblr. (Trigger warnings for discussions of non-consensual sex/rape.)

And, you know, I'm with the majority in thinking that Byrne's AF run was the best the team has ever been and still their strongest overall showing to date, and Lord knows I'm always going to give the man his due for some of the subversive writing he managed to get away with (*points to icon*), but that doesn't mean that there wasn't stuff in there that shouldn't have been amended or just plain ignored as a product of its time. Jeanne-Marie actually given agency in her choice about working with Alpha Flight, as opposed to having her body completely and unwillingly hijacked by Aurora? Good thing. Jean-Paul and Raymonde explicitly given a father-son relationship as opposed to the subtext of them being being January-December lovers? Well, I have complicated feelings on that front, but I generally count it as a positive. So the appeal to authority doesn't do a lot to make me view the current team choosing to go for for the physical/mental/sexual abuse trifecta 30 years post-Byrne in a favorable light either. Frankly? The fact that they decided to switch out the nuns, who at least had a strong presence in JM's history (though I'd have argued that the art in Lobdell's run held more of an implication of sexual misconduct than the text in Bynre's, but then...you know...90's superhero art), for a random figure implies that keeping true to the book's history was secondary, while the molestation reveal was what was considered the important -- doesn't matter who did it, so long as JM was molested.

As for the assertion that heroes need to be brought low in order to rise, I agree with that in principle. Stories where nothing bad ever happened to the cast would be boring. But to look at the differences in how male heroes are brought low and female heroes are brought low and imply that the treatment is equivalent is ridiculous and dodges the issue. I've seen this sidestep soooo many times by male writers trying to justify their mistreatment of female characters as necessary that it's just not funny. Bring me a dozen male heroes in mainstream comics -- we'll even count Image and Dark Horse for these purposes -- who are driven to revenge themselves upon [insert stock type here] because they were raped/sexually molested. How often is the defeated hero put on display with his strategically torn uniform only just covering the tip of his [censored]? When are we going to see the story where Hank Pym or Tony Stark's relationship issues are revealed to be the result of an auntie/schoolmarm with wandering hands? Bringing sexual abuse in as part of the low cycle/angsty backstory of a heroine is overdone (and that's not even getting into how many villainess' have it as their reason for going bad), usually lazy writing, and very rarely handled well, and, honestly, the trope is so threadbare by this point that, handled well or not, it's simply needs to be given a rest.

I've already canceled my pre-order for Alpha Flight #3. I'm going to give it a shelf read, but given that half of this writing team already has a very problematic story concerning lack of consent under his belt and seemed to miss the point of fan concerns by arguing semantics over substance in that case, my faith is riding pretty low. I am just really, really tired of being reminded that being female means that I'm part of the industry's afterthought audience.

[DelBubs]

My understanding was, from the first time I ever read Alpha, that Aurora had been psycologically abused by the Nuns. IE:- Every time her mutant powers manifested she was locked away in the dark and probably told that side of her was evil, possessed etc. This of course led to her fractured psych. I never considered sexual abuse until now. So this developement, to me, isn't needed, I can't see what purpose it serves. Is FVL saying that if he was allowed to have a nun trussed up like that, than the implication would have been the psychological abuse, but because he had to use the caretaker, then the only plot line left was to go down the path of sexual abuse? If the abuse aspect is to try and show how underhand the Unity project is then again, psychological abuse could have been used.

IMO however, this to me personally, is a blip in what to me on the whole is an excellent comic. Having read Alpha Flight #106 and the 'Rape of Apollo' in The Authority, I hope I can see the difference between sensationalism and an unecessary plot developement.

As regards how characters are bought down, so they can rise again... Generic plot devices are there. Iron Man falls into a bottle, Vance Astrovik had an abusive father (One of the only times I would say that a generic plot thread has really been used well). Female characters get raped, physically abusive relationship. By their very nature I don't think Comics can be held to an exacting standard and I expect the use of generic plot devices, but I would hope they are used for a purpose and not just an add on.

[suzene]

Dear Forum,

Eat my reply one more time, and we are in a fight.

No love,
Me

Now then:

My understanding was, from the first time I ever read Alpha, that Aurora had been psycologically abused by the Nuns. IE:- Every time her mutant powers manifested she was locked away in the dark and probably told that side of her was evil, possessed etc. This of course led to her fractured psych. I never considered sexual abuse until now. So this developement, to me, isn't needed, I can't see what purpose it serves. Is FVL saying that if he was allowed to have a nun trussed up like that, than the implication would have been the psychological abuse, but because he had to use the caretaker, then the only plot line left was to go down the path of sexual abuse? If the abuse aspect is to try and show how underhand the Unity project is then again, psychological abuse could have been used.

He seems to be saying that Jeanne-Marie had definitely been sexually abused, and since they weren't allowed to say the nuns did it, they opted for a generic.

As regards how characters are bought down, so they can rise again... Generic plot devices are there. Iron Man falls into a bottle, Vance Astrovik had an abusive father (One of the only times I would say that a generic plot thread has really been used well). Female characters get raped, physically abusive relationship. By their very nature I don't think Comics can be held to an exacting standard and I expect the use of generic plot devices, but I would hope they are used for a purpose and not just an add on.

Truly, if the attitude is going to be that comics are incapable of doing better than they have and do, then the industry needs to stop wringing its hands over the shrinking readership and die quietly. When you have things like a major company admitting that their big, line-wide reboot in a grab for new readership is actually aimed at the same old audience but they are "aware that they have other readers too", and then stories about how little those in charge actually value the characters those already devalued other readers are supposed to identify with turn up (link goes to scan comm), then it can't be a surprise when female/queer/chromatic dollars go to other forms of entertainment (and yet it somehow always is).

[bigbloo]

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

As for the assertion that heroes need to be brought low in order to rise, I agree with that in principle. Stories where nothing bad ever happened to the cast would be boring. But to look at the differences in how male heroes are brought low and female heroes are brought low and imply that the treatment is equivalent is ridiculous and dodges the issue. I've seen this sidestep soooo many times by male writers trying to justify their mistreatment of female characters as necessary that it's just not funny. Bring me a dozen male heroes in mainstream comics -- we'll even count Image and Dark Horse for these purposes -- who are driven to revenge themselves upon [insert stock type here] because they were raped/sexually molested. How often is the defeated hero put on display with his strategically torn uniform only just covering the tip of his [censored]? When are we going to see the story where Hank Pym or Tony Stark's relationship issues are revealed to be the result of an auntie/schoolmarm with wandering hands? Bringing sexual abuse in as part of the low cycle/angsty backstory of a heroine is overdone (and that's not even getting into how many villainess' have it as their reason for going bad), usually lazy writing, and very rarely handled well, and, honestly, the trope is so threadbare by this point that, handled well or not, it's simply needs to be given a rest.

Thanks for bringing this up. I had never really thought about this issue before, but you are right, writers do seem to end up placing female characters in a victim role more often than they do male characters. And it shouldn't be the case. Even if you bring up the "well that's the way it is in real life" argument, we want to create a better world where no one is victimized, so writers have to be aware of this and strive to create work that helps.

Like Del, I'd never thought of Jeanne-Marie/Aurora as being sexually abused, and didn't feel it necessary, the psychological and physical abuse from the nuns was bad enough. You know, I actually admired the fact that in her Aurora persona, she was very confident of her sexuality. This was was in the beginning, before it got transmuted from sexual confidence into ****tish behavior.

I think a good comic entertains. An interesting comic raises issues and results in interesting discussion. A great comic makes the world better by teaching us how to be better people. This comic is intersting and entertaining. I think it can be great, but the next few issues will be telling.

I for one am hopeful and very excited to see where the writers go with this.

[Phil]

Which...really mitigates the issue very little, if at all, IMO

Oh yeah, I wasn't saying it did.
I just found it interesting the way Editorial works on certain subjects.

[Legerd]

Except that contradicts what FVL said about the writers pulling evidence of sexual abuse from the Byrne run. So it's not there just because they couldn't use the nuns.

Unless they went looking for this evidence after they were told not to use the nuns, and had to come up with a different angle to be able to tell their story. Look, I agree with you that it is a tired trope, but since Freg wrote the story to involve Aurora's MPD, and her mental illness was caused by her abuse at the nuns hands, what are the writers supposed to put in place of the nuns when editorial said they couldn't use them? It's not a great solution, but what else are they to put in?

One thing I can't figure from all of this. FVL may or may not have read sexual abuse into Byrnes story, but Marvel would much rather that kinda controversial story than pissing off the Catholic church. What where they going to do? Stop their secret funding, send in Torquemada to discuss respect with the bullpen, a nun in every office with a ruler and a grimace? Being a devout atheist, I don't know what weight the Papacy carries nowadays.

Not that I'm looking to defend Marvel's actions, 'cause I don't agree with them, but I'm assuming they were more worried with Catholic readers, or their parents who might complain because of that kind of imagery.

Plus the story actually negates the whole annoying 'his holiness' aspect when you read that the authoritites knew of the caretakers proclivities, but instead of reporting them just moved him onto fresher targets?

Considering that social workers would be employed by the Province, and not connected to the church, they could get away with this. And if you think a Provincial Government wouldn't work to cover up child abuse then read this story. Sad, but true.

[suzene]

Unless they went looking for this evidence after they were told not to use the nuns, and had to come up with a different angle to be able to tell their story. Look, I agree with you that it is a tired trope, but since Freg wrote the story to involve Aurora's MPD, and her mental illness was caused by her abuse at the nuns hands, what are the writers supposed to put in place of the nuns when editorial said they couldn't use them? It's not a great solution, but what else are they to put in?

Well, first I'm going to give the writing team the benefit of the doubt and assume that the editorial decree went deeper than "You can't have someone in a habit and wimple tied up in this scene" and excise religion from the equation completely. Hence, no mention of nuns or God or faith or sin, no "sister" anything. We do know that they can mention there was abuse going on at the orphanage itself, due to the first page of the scene. So:

- Old lady tied to chair. "Look, it's Anne [Insert Very French Last Name Here], head of the orphanage. She beat you until you stopped trying to be good for its own sake, until you stopped being good to avoid fresh pain, until you just accepted that you were worth nothing and asked for beatings to prove you were good. Would you like to show her how that feels?" Any casual reader bypasses the religious connections completely, but the long-time readers know the full origin story.

- Old man tied to chair. "Look, it's your social worker. You told him about the orphanage -- the beatings/the dark/the hungry nights crying alone, etc. You begged and pleaded to be taken somewhere else, anywhere else, but he never believed you/did nothing. You have the power now. Would you like to hear him beg, Jeanne-Marie?" Nuns? What nuns? There were nuns?

- Walter tied to a chair. "Look, Jeanne-Marie, it's the man who took advantage of you again and again with the help of that trollop..." Because if you feel that exploring sexual trauma is just the way to go wrt Jeanne-Marie, that she felt violated by what Walter and Aurora did to her -- even once Walter knew about her DID -- isn't even subtext, it's explicit on the page and the implications of its effect on Jeanne-Marie's psyche have never been touched on.

That's the result of me doing about ninety seconds of solo brainstorming. There's no way I'm going to believe two people who do this for a living -- one of whom is a fan of the book -- couldn't manage better.

[suzene]

Maybe, but comes off pretty weak if you cut out the religious aspect of it. Much of her suffering was due to her believing that she was sinning, which was enforced by the nuns who are "god's representatives" on Earth. In a child's mind their authority is above question. "Using a sister without using a sister" might be passable for new readers, but for older fans it comes across as pretty lame, and messing with continuity.

I don't mind if you speak for yourself as a knowledgeable fan, but please do not presume to speak for me or others. Obviously I can't do anything about you not liking the idea I put forward, but it is continuity compliant, as nothing in that scenario conflicts with the abuse Jeanne-Marie suffered at the hands of the nuns. It does omit the reasons why her caretakers would be so severe, but IMO, that doesn't take away from the horror of a scenario where someone in authority beat a young girl into a psychotic break, particularly when coupled with the repressive measures referenced on the first page of the scene. The reason why they did it becomes less important than bringing the memory of pain, helplessness, and futility. I am not disagreeing with you about the impact of religion in Jeanne-Marie's backstory, but, with that particular detail off of the table, saying that only sexual abuse could have anywhere near the same impact and suffering as her religious conflict, and so the writers had to include it instead of just going with the mental/physical abuse angle is something I cannot get behind. I find that idea fundamentally repugnant, both as a woman and as a storyteller.

Comes off pretty weak again as he wasn't the one who directly inflicted the pain. I can't see Aurora turning to the dark side to get even with someone not directly involved with the abuse.

It depends on who gets viewed as having done a greater evil: the person who inflicts harm, or the person who, despite their duty to the safety of a child and having the power to stop it, stands idly by and allows it to continue on. If you think it's the former, no harm there -- there's a reason why that sort of question kicks up some fairly heated debates -- but that doesn't make it a less viable option.

They can't use Walter as he'd be getting the brainwashing treatment too.

As Mac pointed out, they have tons of VR and brainbending equipment -- wouldn't be difficult to make her think Walter was there.

Plus, Aurora was the personality that wanted, and pursued the relationship with him, while the Jeanne-Marie personality, though disliking Walter, didn't hate him, and would be too moral to seek revenge, especially on someone who is helpless.

I don't believe Aurora is supposed to be a factor at the moment; both Walter's comments about the "new" her and Jean-Paul's concerns about a stress relapse seem to indicate that Jeanne-Marie has integrated on some level. Keep in mind that the entire scenario in the book is based on Unity urging revenge on someone who harmed Jeanne-Marie in the past, drawing specifically on Jeanne-Marie's traumas -- they certainly do hope she'll try to do something to the person helpless in that chair, whoever it happens to be. BTW, that is some seriously problematic wording, because it looks like you are implying that it would be immoral for a woman to take revenge on her rapist/abuser in a genre that's built on people punching other people for their crimes.

Besides, it would be far more likely to explain why her mind split along sexual lines; her Aurora personality being promiscuous while the Jeanne-Marie personality is prudish.

See, now you're moving your argument from "this is bad but they had no choice" to "this is justified by the subtext". And given that it doesn't take anywhere near even the previously established abuse and oppression that Jeanne-Marie suffered for a woman in our society to grow up with a severely warped and shamed view of her own sexuality...well, it may seem only logical to you, but, as I said previously, given what had already been established so far as to the childhood abuse leading up to Jeanne-Marie's break, from this corner comes across as gratuitous, retconned victimization in a character who's already had more than her fair share, not to mention adding to the long, long list of incidents contributing to the attitude that sexual abuse/rape is just what happens to female characters.

I agree it's not necessary, except that Marvel is taking out any mention of the aspect of her origin that had the greatest impact on her young mind: her religious beliefs. While a child might question an adult, few would question a religious authority.

How often does a child question a parent, however? Closer to the subject at hand, how many abused kids wind up hospitalized or dead because they can't question the authority of their caretakers and ask for help from the outside world? The nuns weren't just religious figures in Jeanne-Marie's life, they were the absolute authority, religious and otherwise, because she literally had no one else.

[Legerd]

I don't mind if you speak for yourself as a knowledgeable fan, but please do not presume to speak for me or others. Obviously I can't do anything about you not liking the idea I put forward, but it is continuity compliant, as nothing in that scenario conflicts with the abuse Jeanne-Marie suffered at the hands of the nuns. It does omit the reasons why her caretakers would be so severe, but IMO, that doesn't take away from the horror of a scenario where someone in authority beat a young girl into a psychotic break, particularly when coupled with the repressive measures referenced on the first page of the scene. The reason why they did it becomes less important than bringing the memory of pain, helplessness, and futility. I am not disagreeing with you about the impact of religion in Jeanne-Marie's backstory, but, with that particular detail off of the table, saying that only sexual abuse could have anywhere near the same impact and suffering as her religious conflict, and so the writers had to include it instead of just going with the mental/physical abuse angle is something I cannot get behind. I find that idea fundamentally repugnant, both as a woman and as a storyteller.

The problem with your first and second scenarios, which is what I've been trying to get across (obviously badly) is that if the writers have to take out something that was so traumatic, and pivotal to her origin, it has to be replaced was something equally traumatic, and pivotal. You think your ideas cover that, I don't. Obviously, you feel far more strongly about something I see only as a plot device, which means we'll never find common ground.

It depends on who gets viewed as having done a greater evil: the person who inflicts harm, or the person who, despite their duty to the safety of a child and having the power to stop it, stands idly by and allows it to continue on. If you think it's the former, no harm there -- there's a reason why that sort of question kicks up some fairly heated debates -- but that doesn't make it a less viable option.

In my opinion it does make it a less viable option. I can't say it any plainer than that.

As Mac pointed out, they have tons of VR and brainbending equipment -- wouldn't be difficult to make her think Walter was there.

I don't believe Aurora is supposed to be a factor at the moment; both Walter's comments about the "new" her and Jean-Paul's concerns about a stress relapse seem to indicate that Jeanne-Marie has integrated on some level. Keep in mind that the entire scenario in the book is based on Unity urging revenge on someone who harmed Jeanne-Marie in the past, drawing specifically on Jeanne-Marie's traumas -- they certainly do hope she'll try to do something to the person helpless in that chair, whoever it happens to be. BTW, that is some seriously problematic wording, because it looks like you are implying that it would be immoral for a woman to take revenge on her rapist/abuser in a genre that's built on people punching other people for their crimes.

You were the one who mentioned Aurora in your example which is why I brought her up. Of course "they" are hoping Jeanne-Marie takes up their offer to torture the guy, they're the bad guys. They're tempting her with what they think she would want, revenge. Granted, And my wording said exactly what I wanted it to say: it would be immoral for someone to seek revenge on someone who is helpless. It's why we have laws, and officers to enforce those laws, and courts to try the guilty. To compare a victim torturing her victimizer who is helpless to a hero fighting a danger villain is wrong. The victim is now the victimizer in your scenario, and has committed an act as wrong as the one inflicted on her. I'm starting to wonder if we're actually arguing about a plot device now.

See, now you're moving your argument from "this is bad but they had no choice" to "this is justified by the subtext". And given that it doesn't take anywhere near even the previously established abuse and oppression that Jeanne-Marie suffered for a woman in our society to grow up with a severely warped and shamed view of her own sexuality...well, it may seem only logical to you, but, as I said previously, given what had already been established so far as to the childhood abuse leading up to Jeanne-Marie's break, from this corner comes across as gratuitous, retconned victimization in a character who's already had more than her fair share, not to mention adding to the long, long list of incidents contributing to the attitude that sexual abuse/rape is just what happens to female characters.

I'm not moving my argument, I'm adding to it. I'm saying editorial is handcuffing the writers, so they are trying to make the story work as best they can, and here's another reason why their new idea can work. The one thing you are missing, and something I discovered rereading Aurora's origin story, is that she attempted suicide due to unstated abuses. Byrne described her life as IIRC "mounting miseries". He never stated what those miseries were, so it's entirely open to a writer's interpretation. It was only after she discovered her mutant abilities that we see the abuses of the nuns. So, though you might not like it, the sexual abuse isn't a retcon, but a fleshing out of stated, but unrevealed backstory. And nobody is saying that rape is something that just happens to female characters.

How often does a child question a parent, however? Closer to the subject at hand, how many abused kids wind up hospitalized or dead because they can't question the authority of their caretakers and ask for help from the outside world? The nuns weren't just religious figures in Jeanne-Marie's life, they were the absolute authority, religious and otherwise, because she literally had no one else.

Thank you for arguing my point. Yes, the nuns, and the church were Jeanne-Marie's ultimate authority as representatives of her god. When they punishered her for what she thought was a miracle given to her by god, it caused conflict in her mind. To take away that religious authority from her origin (for the purposes of this new scene in AF# 2) removes the major stresses which caused her MPD. Therefore it needs to be replaced with something equally traumatic and stressful.

[suzene]

And my wording said exactly what I wanted it to say: it would be immoral for someone to seek revenge on someone who is helpless. It's why we have laws, and officers to enforce those laws, and courts to try the guilty. To compare a victim torturing her victimizer who is helpless to a hero fighting a danger villain is wrong. The victim is now the victimizer in your scenario, and has committed an act as wrong as the one inflicted on her.

...the Jeanne-Marie personality, though disliking Walter, didn't hate him, and would be too moral to seek revenge, especially on someone who is helpless.

Here's what you actually said. To clarify, the bolded would be the problematic part. The fact that her victim is helpless is added as a qualifier, while the idea of revenge against the rapist/abuser seems to be presented as immoral in and of itself, hence drawing attention to it.

I'm starting to wonder if we're actually arguing about a plot device now.

It is fully possible for a woman to argue against a portrayal of rape and sexual abuse in fiction, not to mention point out problematic attitudes toward these portrayals, without having been raped, abused, or molested herself.

[Legerd]

Here's what you actually said. To clarify, the bolded would be the problematic part. The fact that her victim is helpless is added as a qualifier, while the idea of revenge against the rapist/abuser seems to be presented as immoral in and of itself, hence drawing attention to it.

And that was what I meant. My morals are that inflicting pain on someone, even if they've harmed you, is wrong. The victim victimizing his/her abuser now makes them the abuser. Just because some people think the victim would be justified in it doesn't make it right.

It is fully possible for a woman to argue against a portrayal of rape and sexual abuse in fiction, not to mention point out problematic attitudes toward these portrayals, without having been raped, abused, or molested herself.

I never said that, nor did I suggest that, so don't start throwing accusations around. I meant that it seemed we were now getting out of the fictional world of Alpha Flight, and getting into a real world debate of right and wrong. Nowhere did I say you were raped, abused, or molested, so don't put words in my mouth! If we can't have this discussion/argument in a civil manner then let's not have it.

[suzene]

I never said that, nor did I suggest that, so don't start throwing accusations around. I meant that it seemed we were now getting out of the fictional world of Alpha Flight, and getting into a real world debate of right and wrong. Nowhere did I say you were raped, abused, or molested, so don't put words in my mouth! If we can't have this discussion/argument in a civil manner then let's not have it.

I very specifically anchored the discussion in the relative morality of the superhero genre to avoid going off topic, so when you appeared to be answering within the boundaries of that discussion, then made a remark about about whether or not we were discussing comics or the real world, it came off as a passive-aggressive jab. But, since that wasn't your intention, I apologize.

And, no fault to you, but since the mods have decided we're no longer talking comics and that is my intention, calling it here seems like a good idea.

[Legerd]

I very specifically anchored the discussion in the relative morality of the superhero genre to avoid going off topic, so when you appeared to be answering within the boundaries of that discussion, then made a remark about about whether or not we were discussing comics or the real world, it came off as a passive-aggressive jab. But, since that wasn't your intention, I apologize.

And, no fault to you, but since the mods have decided we're no longer talking comics and that is my intention, calling it here seems like a good idea.

I apologize too, going back over what I wrote I see how it could be taken that way. It's just you started with AF, but then I wasn't sure by the end if you were still talking about comics. Believe me, I don't go around looking to poke people in the eye on the internet, especially when discussing sensitive topics such as this.