🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <690@k.cs.cmu.edu> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) writes:
>  Among other things, we finally have a reasonable characterization
>of Cyclops, which Claremont was never able to do because of his hatred for
>the character; I especially liked the way Layton pointed out how much he
>uses his "cursed powers" as an excuse for his own social ineptitude.  There
>is no sentimentality here, just honest emotion, and that in itself puts it
>light-years ahead of Claremont's soap operatic trash.

No, Tim, a reasonable characterization would have been one that could have been
built on what has happened beffore--not just wipe out all the work that has 
been done (good or badd).  The character has to *have a reason* for a sudden
reversal or change in character, not just because the writer says so.  You
can't throw out the past.
>
>I've been trying to figure out the negative reactions, and I've come up with
>two main ideas.  First, people feel that anything would have to be Swamp
>Thing's quality or better to make up for the idiotic stories where Jean Grey
>returned.  Since I avoided those stories, I don't have any such perception
>of karma, and I can appreciate X-Factor for what it is.  Second, people are
>only familiar with the Claremont X-Men and expected something similar.  Wake
>up, guys; THESE are the X-Men, the Stan Lee characters, not those
>johnny-come-lately jerks that Claremont jacks off to pictures of.  They are
>infinitely better than that Len Wein-created cast of losers and stereotypes.

>They have real, complex relationships in the classic Stan Lee style, not the
>cut-and-dried, melodramatic ones which Claremont has created.  I'll bet you
>don't like Marvel Tales either...


So you selectively ignore the past events that has brought the book into 
being--sounds like you're more into a nostalgia trip than into an examination
of the book.  I also don't consider the "oh! how could I ever tell Jean that
*fill in the possibilities here*" wonderful writing. And stereotypes?  Look
at the original X-Men (the early stuff) for some real one-dimensional
characterizations.  Layton has managed to bring that back full circle.
BTW, the "johnny-come-lately jerks" have been around for many more issues
than the originals.

>Seriously, there is more authentic characterization, plot, humor, and pathos
>in X-Factor than in anything Claremont has written in the last two or three
>years.  I prefer not to think that everyone here is totally without taste,
>so I must assume that people were expecting something different, and so see
>this book only in terms of their expectations.  Which is, simply put, a
>tight competitor with BATO for the best team book on the market.

No, I was looking for a decent plot line and a reasonable script.  Not too
much to ask...
>
>PS.  My love Pam, who's about to begin her Ph.D. in Writing, agrees with me
>concerning the relative quality of this book and Claremont's drivel.  Is it
>possible a classics scholar knows some things you don't?  Nah, you read
>comics and science fiction, not those outdated old farts like Dickens and
>Shakespeare and James, so you must have highly discerning standards of plot
>and characterization....
>
No fair having loved ones to offer assenting opinions...

Besides, if you want to see some magnificent stereotypes, read some Dickens,
read some Shakespeare. BTW, don't either of you read anything but anglophone
writers?  Why don't you try Cervantes, Dumas, or Dante? :-)

>Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot, CMU Center for Art and Technology
You said it, I didn't :-)


Laurie Sefton

Integrated Solutions