|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 27, 2018 19:11:21 GMT -5
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? It's from The X-Men Companion II (1982) So, yeah, there you are getting some early push back on the storyline. Makes me wonder how he encountered the essay; was it sent to him, did he see it at a con or someone pass it on to him.... You had some pro involvement in some 'zines, especially things like Cappa Alpha, where you had fans graduate to become pros and maintain contacts, or the CPL Gang, where their fanzine work got them some assignments at Charlton, that led to bigger things. But, again, it took time, back then, for word to get around and for a response to build. Jean Grey's death was one of the first instances where I was aware of a fan response. It seemed to permeate comics of the period. I wasn't involved in fandom and lived in a small farm town, in central Illinois; but, you got a sense in the letters pages and in things like the house fanzine advertisements. It was around this time that I saw my first fanzines, with Amazing Heroes and the Comics Collector, though I was in college before I saw The Comics Journal, Comic buyer's Guide, Comics Interview or Comics Scene (I didn't see that until the revamped vol 2, when I had just graduated college). I can only imagine if I had known about those kinds of connections and outlets. See, kids, we had to walk 10 miles, uphill, through snow to get our fanzines to fuel our outrage; and, then carve letters on stone tablets and mail them off, on tortoise-pulled wagons, to maybe get 3 lines printed. And we liked it! Now all you have to do is scroll down and type something in a box and click "submit." Where's the fun in that? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2018 19:45:36 GMT -5
codystarbuck -- taught me a lesson and I have to accept the decision that Jim Shooter did with this issue and having said that -- I'm letting this go as a lesson learned and forgive and forget this once and forever. I felt that I should not vented my frustrations out of this issue period. Thanks Cody ... 
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 27, 2018 22:52:06 GMT -5
I'd just like to say it would be like 11 kinds of awesome if Claremont actually wrote a story with Misty Knight and Coleen Wing conquering Gor.. can someone make that happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Dec 27, 2018 23:59:37 GMT -5
I pulled it out and re-read #200 quickly. It's the issue I stop collecting the title with now, but at the time I know I did buy #201 at least. I am thinking the parts in it with other Avengers talking happily about a baby coming was Michelinie's original story, and maybe it was a lot more a biased event how he had it put together, and then Shooter comes in and changes stuff but doesn't change that, and it looks bizarre. Shooter must've been on a God of Marvel trip or something after 'making history' with insisting Phoenix must die (which logically I had to agree with), but this was not good, and I think Perez and/or Layton were pulled in as a blame-sharer in redrawing to suit Shooter's ordered changes more than originators of the story. Michelinie was writing Iron Man as well at the time with Layton, but I don't think Layton had anything to do with the Avengers normally. He must've been someone who happened to be around to contribute to how do we last-minute make something out of what Shooter has insisted upon. I wasn't really connected to fans or comic shops at all when this came out so no idea about anyone's reaction. My own was that it was a strange issue, and kind of a mess to say the least after a build up from around #195 I think. I'd rather have had what Michelinie had planned rather than a stroke of genius from the author of the great Korvac saga (a muscley tennis pro in the Hamptons is Jesus II, and the daughter of The Collector who he'd murdered is his devoted thrall, and they hang out in suburbia for many many issues hoping not to be found, however, luckily the NY bus system goes there).  |
|
|
|
Post by String on Dec 28, 2018 0:24:14 GMT -5
The criticisms of #200 are well-documented however I have read some criticisms of Claremont's rebuke in Avengers Annual #10 in that he may have gone too far in having Carol blame the entire team for their lack of inaction over this matter.
My understanding is that only three Avengers were actually present when Carol left with Marcus: Hawkeye, Thor, and Iron Man. Of those three, Tony seemed to be the only one with any reservations over this matter. His concerns were overridden though apparently by the others' acceptance of Carol's leaving with Marcus and the reasons given as to why (for even in #201, Tony apparently voiced his doubts again momentarily only to be talked down by Thor)
So if Thor and Hawkeye reported to the other team members afterwards what occurred then they may have been convincing enough to dissuade any further seeds of doubt among the rest; seeing no danger present, the others apparently felt no need to question events further if it was the happy ending it appeared to be on the surface.
Had the whole team been present to witness Carol's leaving firsthand, their opinions and responses may have been different rather than just mere acceptance of the words on the matter given to them later by trusted teammates. Thus, Carol's rebuke may have been overstated.
I'm not sure if such a criticism (especially in regards to a matter of perceived 'rape') is fair or even valid yet it is an interesting, if not also nitpicking, point of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Dec 28, 2018 3:50:52 GMT -5
It's from The X-Men Companion II (1982) So, yeah, there you are getting some early push back on the storyline. Makes me wonder how he encountered the essay; was it sent to him, did he see it at a con or someone pass it on to him.... Honestly, I don't know how well know was the essay at the time (I mean, I don't even live in the U.S...  ), but this piece is cited in virtually every article that talks about Captain Marvel or Avengers #200... A search on Google with the words "the Rape of Ms. Marvel strickland" returns 142.000 hits and it's even used as a source on the Wikipedia page about Carol Danvers... |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Dec 28, 2018 4:52:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Dec 28, 2018 5:40:41 GMT -5
The criticisms of #200 are well-documented however I have read some criticisms of Claremont's rebuke in Avengers Annual #10 in that he may have gone too far in having Carol blame the entire team for their lack of inaction over this matter. My understanding is that only three Avengers were actually present when Carol left with Marcus: Hawkeye, Thor, and Iron Man. Of those three, Tony seemed to be the only one with any reservations over this matter. His concerns were overridden though apparently by the others' acceptance of Carol's leaving with Marcus and the reasons given as to why (for even in #201, Tony apparently voiced his doubts again momentarily only to be talked down by Thor) So if Thor and Hawkeye reported to the other team members afterwards what occurred then they may have been convincing enough to dissuade any further seeds of doubt among the rest; seeing no danger present, the others apparently felt no need to question events further if it was the happy ending it appeared to be on the surface. Had the whole team been present to witness Carol's leaving firsthand, their opinions and responses may have been different rather than just mere acceptance of the words on the matter given to them later by trusted teammates. Thus, Carol's rebuke may have been overstated. I'm not sure if such a criticism (especially in regards to a matter of perceived 'rape') is fair or even valid yet it is an interesting, if not also nitpicking, point of view. After her ordeal, I'm sure that it's understandable why she doesn't end her accusation with "By the way, I'm talking about who were physically present when I leaved. The rest of you are innocent (event if you had done a lot of questionable things before that...)". |
|
|
|
Post by james on Dec 28, 2018 8:52:21 GMT -5
What was everyone's thought on Perez' art. I don't think it was his best. I wonder if he was seeing how the story was going and was finding it hard to convey through his art the ridiculous story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 28, 2018 9:04:58 GMT -5
He was hurt by subpar inking. I don’t remember it being very pretty to look at.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Dec 28, 2018 9:12:25 GMT -5
What was everyone's thought on Perez' art. I don't think it was his best. I wonder if he was seeing how the story was going and was finding it to convey through his art the ridiculous story. I don't know, he has a co-writer credit so he wasn't in the best position to criticize the story.... |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 28, 2018 13:17:50 GMT -5
So, yeah, there you are getting some early push back on the storyline. Makes me wonder how he encountered the essay; was it sent to him, did he see it at a con or someone pass it on to him.... Honestly, I don't know how well know was the essay at the time (I mean, I don't even live in the U.S... ), but this piece is cited in virtually every article that talks about Captain Marvel or Avengers #200... A search on Google with the words "the Rape of Ms. Marvel strickland" returns 142.000 hits and it's even used as a source on the Wikipedia page about Carol Danvers... Problem with a Google search is it is referencing online articles that have been published. So, the influence is more likely to have come later, given the circulation of most fanzines. Carol Strickland posted it, herself. It's entirely possible that the influence came later as discussion started up about the story and someone had a copy of LoC #1 and posted the essay. Fanzines were often traded, so there could have been some back and forth; but, most of that would have missed the mass audience. The internet has allowed a ton of stuff to be shared with a much wider audience. It's been a while since I read it; but, I can't recall if Will Jacobs and Gerard Jones The Comic Book Heroes discusses it or not. The book came out in 1985 and featured a fan history of the Silver and bronze Age of comics, going up to the early independent market, with Pacific and First Comics and mentions of American Flagg. I can't recall if the Turtles had debuted yet or not. There is a chapter on the X-Men and I seem to recall some discussion of Avengers in there. That was one of the wider circulated works that discussed whole storylines and eras. I have to pull that out again and check it. I'm pretty sure the revised edition, from the 90s, discusses it, which would have coincided with message boards and possible new discussion, not to mention whatever had gone on in the period. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Dec 28, 2018 13:42:34 GMT -5
The criticisms of #200 are well-documented however I have read some criticisms of Claremont's rebuke in Avengers Annual #10 in that he may have gone too far in having Carol blame the entire team for their lack of inaction over this matter. My understanding is that only three Avengers were actually present when Carol left with Marcus: Hawkeye, Thor, and Iron Man. Of those three, Tony seemed to be the only one with any reservations over this matter. His concerns were overridden though apparently by the others' acceptance of Carol's leaving with Marcus and the reasons given as to why (for even in #201, Tony apparently voiced his doubts again momentarily only to be talked down by Thor) So if Thor and Hawkeye reported to the other team members afterwards what occurred then they may have been convincing enough to dissuade any further seeds of doubt among the rest; seeing no danger present, the others apparently felt no need to question events further if it was the happy ending it appeared to be on the surface. Had the whole team been present to witness Carol's leaving firsthand, their opinions and responses may have been different rather than just mere acceptance of the words on the matter given to them later by trusted teammates. Thus, Carol's rebuke may have been overstated. I'm not sure if such a criticism (especially in regards to a matter of perceived 'rape') is fair or even valid yet it is an interesting, if not also nitpicking, point of view. After her ordeal, I'm sure that it's understandable why she doesn't end her accusation with "By the way, I'm talking about who were physically present when I leaved. The rest of you are innocent (event if you had done a lot of questionable things before that...)". The Avengers did let Carol down but do they really deserve such a blanket admonishment over this matter? As I understand the criticism, the three Avengers present were the worst ones to be present for such an act, hardly equipped to understand this matter from a female's perspective in the short span of time given them. Hawkeye and Thor only heard Marcus' tale of wooing Carol and her (apparent) responding feelings. Tony was the only one who questioned it at all yet couldn't for Thor had already whisked the couple away to Limbo. Their thoughts on the matter obviously influenced how the rest of team saw the matter for they felt no need to investigate further. Would they have if they knew more about this? Possibly, maybe. There's no way for Carol to know the full extent of reaction from each member of the team on this matter. So she just offers a blanket denunication of the entire team instead. The act was wrong, the rebuke flawed. It's all a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Dec 28, 2018 14:03:17 GMT -5
After her ordeal, I'm sure that it's understandable why she doesn't end her accusation with "By the way, I'm talking about who were physically present when I leaved. The rest of you are innocent (event if you had done a lot of questionable things before that...)". The Avengers did let Carol down but do they really deserve such a blanket admonishment over this matter? As I understand the criticism, the three Avengers present were the worst ones to be present for such an act, hardly equipped to understand this matter from a female's perspective in the short span of time given them. Hawkeye and Thor only heard Marcus' tale of wooing Carol and her (apparent) responding feelings. Tony was the only one who questioned it at all yet couldn't for Thor had already whisked the couple away to Limbo. Their thoughts on the matter obviously influenced how the rest of team saw the matter for they felt no need to investigate further. Would they have if they knew more about this? Possibly, maybe. There's no way for Carol to know the full extent of reaction from each member of the team on this matter. So she just offers a blanket denunication of the entire team instead. The act was wrong, the rebuke flawed. It's all a mess. Hey, cut her some slack! Her rapist-husband had just turned to dust in front of her, and when she eventually made it back to our world, her powers were stolen, and she was put in a coma by a teenaged mutant with more power than sense, and she's just awakened from that coma. Also, some of her criticisms were directed toward thoughtless comments made by Beast and Wasp earlier in the issue, some of which she had criticized even in the moment.  But mainly, Claremont had some things to get off his chest about Avengers #200, and given the opportunity to write Avengers Annual #10, that's what he wanted to use it to soapbox about, so treating the Avengers as a unit was a matter of narrative convenience, regardless of who was actually in the room at the final moment. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Dec 28, 2018 17:28:50 GMT -5
But mainly, Claremont had some things to get off his chest about Avengers #200, and given the opportunity to write Avengers Annual #10, that's what he wanted to use it to soapbox about, so treating the Avengers as a unit was a matter of narrative convenience, regardless of who was actually in the room at the final moment. This. And let's not forget that these (err, spoiler?) aren't real people and the comics aren't documentaries. Their authors speak through the characters, and what the authors of Avengers #200 thought about this was clear. It would not have made any difference if Wasp or the Beast had been there. Ms Marvel had to go. |
|
), but this piece is cited in virtually every article that talks about Captain Marvel or Avengers #200... A search on Google with the words "the Rape of Ms. Marvel strickland" returns 142.000 hits and it's even used as a source on the Wikipedia page about Carol Danvers...
