Interesting idea.

I have to assume that, with two issues of build-up, and this occurring in the big 200th issue, that there were originally plans for this storyline to advance forward in a significant way, so my biggest question of all is where all of this was going to go? A Kree version of Christ fighting...what?

Interesting comments all around but let me add a theory- the cries of rape were pretty harsh and maybe deserved , but only based on a particular point of view. If the next years annual had a story of Marvel coming back with Marcus and attempting a take over of earth, no one would have blinked. Claremont took it in the direction of rape but another writer could have taken it in the direction of she lives happily ever after. When I read that issue originally, I too thought they went off happily.

I've been trying to find some contemporary commentary, without much luck. Like I said, I don't have scans of the Buyer's Guide to Comic Fandom/Comic Buyer's Guide. At that point, i believe they had the former name and were on a monthly schedule. They were weekly, after Krause Publications bought the publication; but, that wasn't until later. They had regular reviews and columns, plus reader letters on all kinds of subjects. So, I have no idea of what discussions went on there.

Amazing Heroes started in 1981 and had a general notice about upcoming Marvel Annuals, including Avengers Annual #10. A few issues down the road there was a notice that it had been pushed back from July to Aug release. After it came out, there is no mention of the story. Amazing Heroes format was basic news of creative and editorial changes, new releases, cancellations and price changes. Then, there were usually historical pieces, reprints of Star wars and Star Hawks comic strips, and a retrospective article or two. They stayed on cordial terms with the Big Two and had more straight forward reporting and features, compared to TCJ.

I went through the Comics Journal, in all of their issues from 1980 to 1982 and came across a mention that Avengers #197 would have Ms Marvel pregnant and the baby delivered in issues #200. I found no review of any of those issues or comments about them. I found the same notices about Avengers Annual #10, as in Amazing Heroes (also published by Fantagraphics). I found a lot of reporting, editorials and comment about Roy Thomas' departure from Marvel, Gene Colan's departure from Marvel, Steve Gerber's lawsuit against Marvel, and Michael Fleischer's lawsuit against Fantagraphics, in response to their interview with Harlan Ellison (and the Journal's subsequent feud with Ellison that resulted)

Comics Scene (published by Starlog) started up after the Avengers Annual appeared. In its first incarnation, it focused on the industry, ran interviews with creators, articles about books, articles about art techniques and tools, and general columns of interest (such as Howard Cruse's monthly column). That magazine lasted a couple of years or so, before being revamped around 1988 (ish), with a greater emphasis on media adaptations of comic properties, as well as new material and features on creators. There was a ton of coverage of the Batman films and BTAS, the Image launch, crossover events, and the like. They lasted longer in this version; but, gave up the ghost by the mid-late 90s. They missed the whole thing; but, they weren't big on controversial subjects. They never touched this subject, or were they prone to editorials or critical reviews.

Comics Interview wasn't started until 1983. The subject might have been brought up in interviews; but, that would have been well after the fact. Same for discussion in later publications, like Comic Book Artist and Back Issue, from TwoMorrows

Now, there were all kinds of fanzines, with various sizes of circulations. Most never numbered more than in the hundreds and many far less. Some of the more prominent ones might have hit the thousands; but they were probably publications more along the lines of The Comics Journal and the like.

Now, here's the thing about comic fandom then vs today. There was no internet, so things didn't easily go viral. If you wanted to express outrage, there were two main venues: write a letter, or ask a question/make a statement at a convention. Neither were instantaneous. Most publications were about 2 months from conception to publication; so, letters columns were usually discussing issues from 2 (or more) months ago. Plus, those are only letters published. Fanzines were no different, though the gap between issues could be longer, given finances involved. Most were losing propositions and appeared sporadically, rather than on fixed schedules (the more professional and greater circulating ones, being the obvious exceptions). Conventions largely happened over the spring and summer; so, it was a while before you might bring up an issue to an editor or creative team. So, you had to put some thought into the process and then wait to see if your letter got printed. Criticism did get printed; but, usually in smaller proportion to praise (unless you were a Kirby book, where the deck was being stacked, according to some).

I looked through the Avengers letter columns. There are a couple of comments about #197, with some theories about parentage. Comments on issue 200 were generally praiseworthy, with the biggest laments being the loss of Ms Marvel (especially on the heels of the death of Jean Grey). One letter started out troubled by things, then found the ending to be touching! No one takes them to task for Carol being impregnated and "subtly manipulated." Then again, if you were the editor, would you want to publish such criticism? Subsequent issues see no additional comments. I found now letters column devoted to Avengers Annual #10, though I seem to recall some comment in the X-Men columns, but didn't dig them out to see.

The few letters published seemed to treat the impregnation as something like Alien, where an embryo was implanted into Carol's body, rather than describing something akin to rape.  One even mentions the parasite metaphor.  They are all from males, too.

Now, as we see, there were criticisms, but in less visible publications. It probably took time for that essay to become known; certainly beyond the confines of the readership of LoC #1. By that point, the storylines had moved on and it wasn't long before we have Hank Pym slapping his wife. That was a whole 'nother kettle of fish and there was a controversy there, as the repercussions carried over more than one issue. The letters columns had comments and it altered Hank & Jan's marriage and the treatment of the character in future. Mark Millar took it and turned Hank Pym as someone with mental health issues and that one moment of violence (aside from Ultron's mind control and the periods of mental instability) and turned Hank into a serial abuser. I still think that is largely why Hank was used as a supporting character to Scot Lang and they went out of their way to make his story about grieving for the lost Jan, while pushing their adventures back to the Cold War, rather than making them contemporary (except as older figures).

The mass media never got ahold of the story, so there was no big deal made, as with the revelation that Northstar was gay or like in the 90s, when a young Marvel fan lobbied Marvel to remove images of characters like Wolverine and Nick Fury from smoking, on trading cards and comic covers. This got some mainstream coverage, as Marvel agreed and made changes and publicized it to get some positive press. The internet was in its infancy, by that point.

So, it took time for criticism to come to light and circulate; but, it appears, anecdotally, that it was mostly within the smaller fanzine community. Now, that might have grown as fanzines circulated and the subject was brought up at conventions. Its hard to tell how much mail Marvel got, as they only printed about 4 letters about issue #200 (maybe 6, with a couple of brief comments). It's hard to tell how many negative letters they got, since they weren't published. Of what they did, more people seemed to be bummed about Carol leaving the book, rather than the thrust of the story.

Let's also consider the context of the time and other stories going on. Just before issue #200, Jean Grey was killed, at the climax of the Dark Phoenix storyline. That was a big shock, as it had grown into one of the top books out there (and this storyline pushed it firmly to the top, for the next several years). There was a lot of fan reaction, both upset about Jean dying and about where the book would go next. There were all the theories about whether Jean was dead. Death was not overly done then, with most deaths occurring in origin stories and rarely affecting major characters or supporting characters. We know the exceptions and even those were teased with possible changes. The X-books didn't take long before we were teased with the possibility that Jean was alive and then Marvel did bring her back (and altered the Phoenix who died as not being Jean).

Also on the stands was Frank Miller's Daredevil. We were early in his run as writer and artist, with Elektra being introduced in October of 1980, when Avengers #203 was on the stands. By the time of of the Annual, Daredevil was just a couple of issues away from killing Elektra.

Carol was carried over to the X-men, after the Annual; but, didn't do much until issue 158, where she and Wolverine infiltrate the pentagon to erase data on the X-Men and run into Rogue and Mystique. Then she is mostly background until issue 164, when the Brood transform her into Binary.

Shooter had already moved on and mention the Avengers Annual ending the Carol Danvers Ms Marvel story, clearing the way for a new Ms Marvel character. That didn't happen until the Thing comic, when we got the new Ms Marvel. He might have been mixing things up with the new Captain Marvel, who debuted around that time.

My point is, that it took a while for real outrage to grow about this story and that the rise of the internet has magnified it, as new generations have been exposed to the story and from the author's outrage to the story, depending on their description of things. The contemporary criticism was probably within a more insular environment and took a far greater amount of time to move beyond. Claremont had a vested interest in the character, having written her up to her series cancellation. He didn't like what they did and wrote a story to address it and took the character into his realm. I suspect he had supporters within Marvel, as there always seemed to be editorial factions within the company (if due to nothing else but competing egos). There was nothing like the reaction to the death of Jean Grey, though, or Elektra a couple of years later. There was not the reaction to Northstar's (finally) coming out and Marvel's backing off the story. There was nothing like the outcry over Eddie Berganza. It took far longer for responses to come in and they were usually a bit more reasoned, since you had to take time to write a letter, vs fire off an immediate e-mail. The internet changed the dynamic. Now, you had message boards and direct e-mail accounts, plus news sites and blogs. You now have media outlets searching for filler stories and picking up blog pieces for story possibilities. It's much like the rise of cable news, which increased the amount of celebrity news and promotional pieces disguised as news, as the outlets needed content. In those days, the mass media rarely commented about comics and when they started to take notice, it was about things like these new fangled stories aimed at adult audiences, like Dark Knight and Watchmen. Even the Women in Refrigerators critique took time to gain prominence. It started out as a response that grew over time, to become a catch phrase for the disposable treatment of female characters.


There is also the issue that news cycles rise and fall and people quickly move on. How long were people outraged about Identity Crisis? A month, maybe 2? After that, it becomes a footnote to criticism of Brian Meltzer or Dan Didio.

I'm curious to the source of the Claremont comment posted above, since it mentions the essay from LoC #1. I assume the Sanderson conducting the interview is Peter Sanderson, who started in fanzines, before working behind the scenes at Marvel and DC and kind of went back to the fanzine/historical world. Is this from the 1980s or later? What publication? Depending on the answer, Claremont might have been aware of the essay then or only became aware of it later. Did it help prompt his rebuttal in the Annual or merely echo his sentiments? How did he encounter it? That would be an interesting subject to explore, to determine how big the response was, at the time, vs how much greater it seemed, in retrospect. Really, you could probably get a whole book out of this, with time for interviews and research (plus the funds to do it). Maybe if I win the lottery, some day, I might dig deeper into the subject, or if some publisher wants to give me a huge advance. Right now, I have all but exhausted my available resources.

I suspect that the core of Claremont's outrage was not the pregnancy inflicted on Ms. Marvel, and the means by which it happened. He inflicted violations galore to women in his own stories on a monthly basis. The heart of his indignation was that he saw Ms. Marvel as one of "his" characters, and he didn't like her going off with Marcus to limbo or wherever he was from, and so he wrote a story to bring her back and have her yell at the Avengers for letting her go. Although his proprietary attitude may seem entitled, I appreciate that it springs from a conviction about what the character would or wouldn't do, as opposed to just a chance to make some bucks by having the character do whatever fans want.

I always considered Marvel a C list character. Only in the last 10 years has Marvel comics made an effort to make her one of the big guns. It feels forced, to me.

Given that a lot of the audience was male (most of it) I don't doubt that a lot of pros and fans weren't overly sensitive to the concepts at play.  Notice the oldest criticism we have uncovered is from a woman, outside the industry.  Same with Gail Simone and Women in Refrigerators.  At this time, you don't have many women pros.  Those that were around describe a boy's club atmosphere, from the Golden Age through the 80s.  More women came into Marvel under Shooter, though it doesn't sound like their voices were given much weight.  Dc did a bit better, thanks to jenette Kahn, at the helm and especially with Karen berger and Vertigo.  Aside from Marie Severin, Weezy is probably the most respected female at Marvel and look how she was treated, by the 90s.

The one letter I saw in Avengers, which found the ending touching, reminded me some of fans of John Fowles' The Collector.  That novel features a repressed man, who is a bullied bank clerk, who wins a fortune in the football (soccer) pools and buys a country manor.  He then kidnaps a woman he is obsessed with and tries to make her fall in love with him.  He is a butterfly collector and the novel draws parallels to his having collected her.  It doesn't end well and he ends up focusing on a nurse, for his next obsession.  The film version has Terrence Stamp and he comes across very sympathetic, in many instances.  However, by end, you see that he is evolving into a serial kidnapper/killer.  Some found the character romantic, ignoring the ending, where he sets his sights on another woman, of, in his mind, lower stature (more in his social realm).  You can very much see that mindset at work with Marcus, as he brings Carol to him, woos her, and uses machines to make her more receptive to his advances.  In the end, it isn't free will.

Claremont, in the above excerpt, brings up John Norman's Gor series of fantasy novels.  They were a product of the 70s and early 80s, starting as a Burroughs pastiche.  Tarl cabot, an Earthman, is whisked away by a ship to a counter-Earth, which is in a pseudo-Greco-Roman stage of civilization, with giant hawks that are ridden by humans (called tarns, leading to the first novel's title, Tarnsman of Gor).  I started reading them, after seeing some of them at my cousin's house.  The world includes slavery and it pops up in the first novel.  the second has the character marry and the ceremony has a bondage element to it.  by the 4th or 5th novel, that element had become a major plot point and the books take a definite turn into kinky territory.  I stopped reading  them after starting one where a modern woman is brought to this world and made a slave, right after reading one where Tarl Cabot was made a slave.  It was no longer a Burroughs pastiche with a slightly kinky touch; it became more an exploration of dominance and submission.  The writing wasn't particularly good and the better elements of the first couple of novels were long gone (I read the first two in sequence, then read a couple of others, after finding them, rather than the next book in the series).  Norman also wrote a book, called Imaginative Sex, which is filled with bondage and domination fantasies, I discovered, when it was reprinted in the 90s and we got it at Barnes & Noble.  Nothing wrong with that, per se; but, it very much revolved around the idea that women were submissive and just needed to be woken up to that fact and involved a lot of humiliation, on top of things.


There is a troubling trend in comics to these ends, especially in this era and before.  You don't get many really strong female characters, with agency, even at the superhero level.  The women are often the weak members of the team, in need of rescue, even when their powers are greater.  Wonder Woman was originally all kinds of kinky, then got toned down into something just as weird, if not as overt about it.  When it returned Diana to costume, after the powerless "Emma Peel" period, it had a rather condescending element of the JLA secretly spying on her, to ensure she was up to snuff.  That whole timeframe, including the Diana Prince, Wonder Woman, has liberal use of bondage and domination imagery on the covers and in stories.  Same for the Lois Lane comics of the era.  I've remarked about some of the defenders issues, in my reviews and Avengers has it, too.  Claremont was one of the rare writers to have more nuanced female characters, and even he indulged in kinky torture and mind games (after appropriating some kink from Emma peel and the Avengers tv show).  This stuff goes back to the Golden Age and the Pulps, which borrowed them from melodramas and myth.  It represents drama; but, you have to wonder about comics fans when things like The Overstreet guide have entries that note bondage covers.  I notice that they don't note it when it is a male character (usually).


No, I suspect the mostly male staff at Marvel didn't have as big of a problem as Carol Strickland, and commentators since.