The Suit: Heather or Mac?

[Northcott]

I'd started to post this in Birdygirl's v4 thread, but figured it would be more polite to start a new one. :)


I'm genuinely curious: Why do people want to see Mac stuck in an office and Heather flying around in the suit? It seems to play contrary to their strengths.

Heather's chief strength has always been a remarkably strong, decisive, and bold core. She doesn't come across as an overly aggressive or self-centred person, but doesn't back down when challenged. Her background makes her the perfect choice to be the person that deals with things from a position of authority in an office atmosphere. She'd be an unstoppable dynamo.

Mac, on the other hand, would be a bloody disaster. Mac's an inspirational figure -- or at least he is if you look what was done with him before the Mantlo days. Judd, Bochs, and many other spoke of Mac in almost deific terms. He took the plans of a crippled engineer and helped him build a super-suit from it, trusting in that man's vision. He took a vertically-challenged criminal and gave him a chance to be a hero. He took a backwoods psycho with tinfoil pigstickers and... well, fine, he lost that one -- but he tried.

Mac's the idealistic nutjob that gives everybody a second chance. He inspires those around him. He doesn't kill. He built the suit, and is responsible for the innovations behind it. If something goes wrong with it in combat, realistically he's the one most qualified to handle it. Put him in an office environment, however, and he's screwed. He may have been a reluctant leader, but his temperment is more geared toward adventure than bureaucracy: he trusts people and believes in second chances. That idealism is commendable, but will get you run over like a groundhog on the 401 in that environment: it would be too easy to take advantage of him.

Heather's an able combatant in the suit, but she's incapable of dealing with it's intricacies (save through writers fudging a scenario). We're not talking about something as simple as learning an OS here; this sucker's complex in a way that defies modern science. It's emphatic proof of the Unified Field theory (which has always had me believing that Mac should be a physicist and an engineer) -- an accomplishment at least on par with Tony Stark, and possibly even closer to Reed Richards in sheer brilliance. Heather's bright and capable, but not a genius.

She's capable in the suit, but Mac makes a better super-hero from perspectives of both idealogy and capability. Mac, on the other hand, would make a terrible CEO or Department Head. Heather, in contrast, would rock the world.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Yes....your logic is sound, Ed....but you clearly favor Mac as Guardian, where I favor Heather. How about both of them with EM suits as co-leaders of AF? Heather has much more leadership experience than he does, He has the tech know-how to repair the suits, etc....She loves to lead and wear the suit(where he does not)....and together, they make a pretty cool team.

I could be down with that. Besides...the more I think about it....the better I like the idea of no Dept H.

Dana

[Northcott]

Oh yeah, I've no bones about admitting that I think Mac fills the role of Guardian better. But the flipside of the coin is true: I believe that Heather is much stronger when it comes to issues of organization and dealing with people in a practical way.

I'm also rather fond of Department H -- just not as the conspiracy-laden entity it became. It provides an interesting literary tool in contrast with the rest of the Marvel U. They have Xavier's institute, and the struggle between government interference and private enterprise. There's also Tony Stark, highlighting the role of big business in American culture.

Up here we tend to treasure our public programs to varying degrees. Environmental issues can actually make or break elections, rather than being back-burner considerations. The cultures are very similar, but it's the little differences across a broad range of issues that tell the story.

To that end, Department H makes perfect sense -- so long as it's not turned into a quasi-CIA conspiracy. The recognition of mutants in society would be a prime issue, as would how they are handled. Department H becomes the perfect vehicle for that, and who better to shape the future course of a nation than Heather?

It's not necessarily that I want her out of the suit, per se, but rather that I'd really like to see a female character achieve a greater role than perceived power through violent action. I've a soft spot for Heather in that regard: I think the character has massive potential, but I see that potential being outside of the tights -- and more far-reaching.

I'd really like to see her in a history-changing role. :) Eleanor of Aquitaine level of historical importance.

[varo]

mac.



ummmm.........


to lazy to type why.

[Legerd]

I say Mac as well for two reasons:

1. He designed and built the suit which means he is the one who would know how to use it to its full potential. Also, he could fix it on the fly if need be. Plus his scientific knowledge is a big asset in the field.

2. I agree Heather is a much stronger personality and less naive than Mac, therefore better suited to dealing with the government and its red tape. If anyone can keep Dept. H on the straight and narrow its her.

[Northcott]

2. I agree Heather is a much stronger personality and less naive than Mac...

I prefer the phrase "optimistic in regards to personality". :wink:

[Mystic]

Well, I have to agree with CmdrKoenig on this, I much prefer to see Heather in the suit. To me she has the leadership qualities it takes to lead AF. James is a scientist first and foremost, and was a reluctant hero even when he was in charge of AF (at least that was the impression I got). I think he would be happier behind a desk, letting someone else run the suit (he might not be happy that it was Heather...but he'd have to let her do her own thing).

-Mystic

[Northcott]

I remember Heather being a reluctant hero as well. Not that it's a bad thing: reluctant heroes are the staple of fantasy and sci-fi literature. Being a hero sucks. Only a nut-case or glory-hound would want the job. :)

[Barnacle13]

I think you've made a fine arguement for why neither should be in the suit. Mac is a scientist and reluctrant hero with a history of getting....well....dead. He's much better suited for the lab environment and perhaps running the training sessions for the new Weapon Alpha, Guardian, Vindicator, Province, Captain Canada, or whatever you want to call him. Heather is the only character who could stand toe to toe with creatures far worse that supervillains, bureaucrats! She's tenacious, spirited, passionate, and compassionate. She views Alpha Flight as a family, and if anyone is, she is Mama! I say put her in the role of director or liason, put Mac over R&D/operative development. Shaman should become the team physician. Leave the mystic duties to Earthmover or preferably Talisman. I know I've veered off track a bit. Bringing it back on track, you said it best yourself. Heather is an organizer/diplomat and Mac is a scientist/engineer. Neither of those really screams follow me into battle. I think Puck would be a great leader, though I can see the comic taking some heat from having a dwarf as their leader. Rename him Canuck, so he retains part of his old identity while building a new one as the figurehead of the team. He seems a good tactician and has the charisma and respect to pull it off. You could even bring Zuzha along as the new Puck that way if you decided to keep her. I know again more info than you asked for. Sum up..... put the Hudson's in as support, but leave the fighting to the folks who aren't raising a newborn. They can always be called in to dust off the suits and rescue the team if need be.

Tom

[Mokole]

I think you've made a fine arguement for why neither should be in the suit. Mac is a scientist and reluctrant hero with a history of getting....well....dead. He's much better suited for the lab environment and perhaps running the training sessions for the new Weapon Alpha, Guardian, Vindicator, Province, Captain Canada, or whatever you want to call him. Heather is the only character who could stand toe to toe with creatures far worse that supervillains, bureaucrats! She's tenacious, spirited, passionate, and compassionate. She views Alpha Flight as a family, and if anyone is, she is Mama! I say put her in the role of director or liason, put Mac over R&D/operative development. Shaman should become the team physician. Leave the mystic duties to Earthmover or preferably Talisman. I know I've veered off track a bit. Bringing it back on track, you said it best yourself. Heather is an organizer/diplomat and Mac is a scientist/engineer. Neither of those really screams follow me into battle. I think Puck would be a great leader, though I can see the comic taking some heat from having a dwarf as their leader. Rename him Canuck, so he retains part of his old identity while building a new one as the figurehead of the team. He seems a good tactician and has the charisma and respect to pull it off. You could even bring Zuzha along as the new Puck that way if you decided to keep her. I know again more info than you asked for. Sum up..... put the Hudson's in as support, but leave the fighting to the folks who aren't raising a newborn. They can always be called in to dust off the suits and rescue the team if need be.

Tom

I agree with what your saying. Canada/Puck as Canuck, works well. Zuzha as Puck. Hudsons in admin, support. Box or Windshear for true power. :wink:

[varo]

alright, i have some more energy now.

mac just looks like more of a team leader and icon in the suit than heather does, although i do agree heather has more fire and personality than mac.

i really want to see a alpha series that explores mac's reincarnations, trying to reconcile with heather, and what it means to be a reluctant hero and the added responsibilty of a child. plus no way a new mother wants to jet around in that suit with a newborn at home.

plus the first time i picked up alpha #1 series one that costume grabbed me, i'm telling ya it is right up there with captain america's as far as icon status, and i'm american.

and lastly i really would like to hear about mac and helping logan and his ties to weapon x (if there are any) and macs past within department h, how he convinced the canadian goverment to form alpha and his relationship with wolverine. it seems all we have ever seen is mac and logan at each others throats, yet logan considers mac one of his best friends. there was so much story to tell with mac, a shame he died (for the first time) in #12.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I say Mac as well for two reasons:

1. He designed and built the suit which means he is the one who would know how to use it to its full potential. Also, he could fix it on the fly if need be. Plus his scientific knowledge is a big asset in the field.

2. I agree Heather is a much stronger personality and less naive than Mac, therefore better suited to dealing with the government and its red tape. If anyone can keep Dept. H on the straight and narrow its her.

I guess that's true...it's not like the brainwashed her in the past and may be able to control her every action, even now....oh wait.... :wink:

Dana

[cmdrkoenig67]

alright, i have some more energy now.

mac just looks like more of a team leader and icon in the suit than heather does, although i do agree heather has more fire and personality than mac.

Uh....because he's a male? Gender bias aside...I think Heather looks just as much a leader and icon, as her husband does(she's wearing the Canadian flag, for Pete's sake). BTW...I think Mac looks great in the costume too.

i really want to see a alpha series that explores mac's reincarnations, trying to reconcile with heather, and what it means to be a reluctant hero and the added responsibilty of a child. plus no way a new mother wants to jet around in that suit with a newborn at home.

Apparently....you haven't met Heather...LOL.

plus the first time i picked up alpha #1 series one that costume grabbed me, i'm telling ya it is right up there with captain america's as far as icon status, and i'm american.

and lastly i really would like to hear about mac and helping logan and his ties to weapon x (if there are any) and macs past within department h, how he convinced the canadian goverment to form alpha and his relationship with wolverine. it seems all we have ever seen is mac and logan at each others throats, yet logan considers mac one of his best friends. there was so much story to tell with mac, a shame he died (for the first time) in #12.

It IS a shame he died, those many years....it's also a shame he was resurrected...again and again and again. The biggest problem with Mac is...no writer can apparently write him, develop his character and avoid killing him off. The only writer that came close to fleshing out Mac is John Byrne(his creator/co-creator)...every other writer seems to avoid Mac like the plague...I wonder why?

Dana

[varo]

Uh....because he's a male? Gender bias aside

o dear god, please don't try to go there. that is so far from what i am thinking it's not even funny.

maybe it was those silly glasses they put on heather that made me not like it as much as the helmet mac wore.


and any women with a newborn usually tries to nurture for her child rather than trying to save the world (this being a parent of 3 with a wife, not because i am GENDER BIASED )

[cmdrkoenig67]

Then what are you thinking? I'm just wondering how you formed that opinion.

...And as far as Heather being a stay-at-home mom...she has yet to be written that way.

Dana

[varo]

because he looks like more of a icon in that outfit than i feel heather did. ala capt. america and captain britain, i never fet heather looked as dominant and a symbol for the team and country as mac did, but again, thats my opinion.

and as far as how heather has been written since she has had a child i think she has been in the total of one issue, and her relation with her child has been summed up as "we better stop and pick up our child on the way to outer space"

she has "yet" to be written that way, "yet" being the key word. because i feel heather feels very strongly about family, and the last thing she would do is leave a child in someone elses care while she was out saving the world. but again......my opinion.

[cmdrkoenig67]

because he looks like more of a icon in that outfit than i feel heather did. ala capt. america and captain britain, i never fet heather looked as dominant and a symbol for the team and country as mac did, but again, thats my opinion.

and as far as how heather has been written since she has had a child i think she has been in the total of one issue, and her relation with her child has been summed up as "we better stop and pick up our child on the way to outer space"

she has "yet" to be written that way, "yet" being the key word. because i feel heather feels very strongly about family, and the last thing she would do is leave a child in someone elses care while she was out saving the world. but again......my opinion.

Captains America and Britain? Um...their both men too, you know?

Heather's appeared(post baby) in the two X-Men issues where Af goes to collect Sammy pare from Xavier's school and then in issue 6 of the latest series. Of course she's all about family(she IS the oldest of 7 kids, after all)...I'm not disputing that, just stating that she's not been written as the stay-at-home type.

Dana

[Legerd]

I say Mac as well for two reasons:

1. He designed and built the suit which means he is the one who would know how to use it to its full potential. Also, he could fix it on the fly if need be. Plus his scientific knowledge is a big asset in the field.

2. I agree Heather is a much stronger personality and less naive than Mac, therefore better suited to dealing with the government and its red tape. If anyone can keep Dept. H on the straight and narrow its her.

I guess that's true...it's not like the brainwashed her in the past and may be able to control her every action, even now....oh wait.... :wink:

Dana

Ah, but it wasn't the government that brainwashed her, it was the corrupt heads of Dept. H. If she were in charge of Dept. H then things like that wouldn't happen... unless of course Mac forgot to pick up milk on his way home from saving the world or something. :wink:

[JohnnyCanuck]

I think Puck would be a great leader, though I can see the comic taking some heat from having a dwarf as their leader. Rename him Canuck, so he retains part of his old identity while building a new one as the figurehead of the team.
Tom

Rename him Canuck....
Why does this sound like a good idea to me?????

Johnny CANUCK

[kozzi24]

I pick up on some gender bias about who looks more iconic too. The US and Canada are similar, but Canada has it over US in many ways...less crime, less violent crime, less aggressive foreign policy, and healthcare. Look at healthcare as nurturing and the less violence and aggression, and I think a female icon for Canada is MORE symbolic. I don't think the flavor of sexism was intentional, but it was very subliminal, and very THERE.

That's part of what I prefer about Heather in the suit.

She' is more diplomatic, but tougher. Mac himself, during the Neceinza resurrection, pointed out that Heather AT THE TIME had approximately 3X the experience with the suit

There's a matter of consistent characterization here too. Mac NEVER wanted to wear the suit. There was Groundhog from First Flight Special, and this indicates that he designed the suit for others to wear, and would certainly have designed it for others to make on-the-spot repairs. The fact that the suit killed him just shows he did not think of EVERYTHING that could go wrong. And in that characterization outlook, would dying from the suit give him motivation to wear it into battle? No. If anything, there could be further interplay between he and his wife because she still wears a version of the suit that killed him, even though Bochs and Jeffries suppoedly eliminated the fatal flaw. Mac always wanted to be a lab person. Given his brilliance as we see in the Guardian battlesuit, how can he contribute more to the fictional world, wearing the battlesuit in combat or inventing other things?

Mac's discretion in member selection, even if forced by government backing, was questionable. There's a lot of examples that could be culled from 165 issues and other appearances, but I will cite only one: He admitted that he was NOT surprised that most of the original Omega Flight would have turned.

Mac's role would be in the lab and liaison, Heather as team leader...that would not leave Heather without direct interface with the government, and I could see Mac getting what he wanted, repeatedly, with the phrase, "OK, we'll see what Heather has to say about that." I think most people in the government would PREFER to work with Mac.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Mac playing househusband anyway. He can do his research with a babysack for little Emma...don't know why, but I've always called the baby that. See the tyke, watching over his shoulder, learning tech before she can walk.

As a matter of confidence, who would you rather follow into battle, the creator of the battlesuit who died wearing it or someone with 4 to 6 times the successful experience with it in combat?

Most of the Marvel Universe would be more accstomed to Heather as leader, including the Avengers, Doc Strange, Spider-Man...anyone they met in the Infinity crossovers, etc etc

Putting Mac back in the suit seems to just be pandering to making Alpha exactly as it was when they first premiered, and I don't see the use in that. I don't like ANADAF because it wasn't the originals. I don't like Volume 2 for the same reason. But my stance goes a bit deeper than that. I don't ewant to see everything just brought back to the way it was...I want to see the development that was put into these characters respected. There's well more than 10 years of CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT behind Heather as Guardian. To just bring back Mac and have him usurp the role...and make Heather pregnant then a mommy as a very sexist way of removing her from the leadership in deference to Mac...is just reverting the team to what it was originally. As of V1#12, it really could never be that way again. I never liked Snowbird's death, but I also dislike that Erik Larsen brought her back, just to make the team as close as it was to their first appearances. And it's these retro-revising plots that usually stand out as the most forced and illogical, including the ending of V3#12.

I think V3 should have been Heather and Mac leading Sasquatch, Puck, Earthmover, Shaman and the new Snowbird...because that's how they have DEVELOPED for good or bad. The Heather Mac dichtomony could have been explored...but not one writer who has brought Mac back has tried to give him character-sonsistent motivation to don the suit again. Niceinza at least tried, with General Clark's preference in dealing with Mac, but it never made an ounce of sense from the perspective of Mac's character.

Heather was down and out, and her supported-by-most-members assumption of leadership of the Flight gave the character purpose in her fictional life, and for the most part, she has performed admirably. She found her purpose, and maintains it.

Mac's character never wanted the role, and many of his in-the-field failures came from a lack of self confidence. If writer's stay true to the character, he SHOULD not be in the suit, which is my bottom line for voting against him.

I don't like the sexist excuse of "Heather's a mother" so she should stay home with the baby. We've got Sylvie and Jo and there have been many other female fans of Alpha I've encountered in the Volume 1 years who were in part drawn to the title and guys who were NOT turned off to it because the team leader was a self-assured capable woman who was not written to the man-beating Feminazi extreme. Heather, from her first appearance in Uncanny X-Men 139, was written to develop as team leader. Byrne, Mantlo, Hundall, Lobdell and Furman all continued that development. I don't want to see their work thrown aside, along with the thought and time and satisfaction I have invested in the development of that character.

I especially don't want to see it misused or thrown away because Marvel Powers that Be think it takes a male character to be an iconic hero.

[HappyCanuck]

Sorry, Varo, but I read that with gender bias as well, even tho I am damned sure that is not how you meant it - just poor phrasing. (I'm the queen of badly phrasing things). For the record, I knew what you meant when you said it, but can see how it can be misconstrued.

As for 'Heather, as a reluctant hero, not being the type to go out into dangerous situations because she's a mother': snotpuddles. Heather's a reluctant hero, just as her husband, not because she has the firepower and because she WANTS to, but because, to her, she NEEDS to. It's the same reason Mac donned the suit: Canada needed a defender, and Alpha Flight needed a leader - All the options failed, so he put the suit on. He didn't want to, but he felt he had to, since no one else was willing or able to fit the bill. Oh, and for the record (and strictly from my own observations): in Heather's case, the reason she's still in the suit is because, on some levels, she doesn't trust Mac to do right. The first time, she saw him die and couldn't do anything to protect him. That shock nearly killed her. Then having a reletively-still-fledgling Alpha land on her lap like some orphaned kid, she had to do right by these 'kids' (in a metaphoric sence) in the wake of their 'father's death, make sure they grow up nice and strong. Heather-as-human, tho the OTHERS showed confidence in her, SHE had no confidence in herself that she could live up to their expectations. To remedy that, she did the next seemingly-logical step: she put on an exact replica of the same suit that killed her husband. Safe bet (tho I don't think it was ever meantioned directly) that she resented the suit, but it was the only foreseeable solution. She put that resent behind her desire to 'raise' her 'orphaned family'. She had to make herself physically stronger to gain a facade of confidence in herself (note I said 'facade' - the confidence was there, but she was only seeing the limitations of being strictly human). After a while, that confidence grew in her. But she was still stuck: She didn't WANT to be a hero anymore than Mac did, but, to see not only the team strive forth as a unified entity, but to see her husband's dream strive despite what it caused her, she did what she felt she NEEDED to do to ensure piece of mind.

But when Mac came back, not once, but three times (once when she didn't even know he was gone!), Heather's faith in her husband - the person - faultered. Sure, she could have just dropped the suit and let Mac go off and play hero in her stead - hell, she'd like nothing more than to do just that! - but she was always afraid that he'd 'leave' again, dropping Alpha back in her lap. She invested WAY too much time and energy into keeping Alpha formidable and half-assed stable enough to function to see it fall apart again because her husband was too weak to be the defining strength that the team needed (old war axiom: "A platoon is only as strong as it's leader"). Of course, she'd never say as much to him - or hell even think such a thing outright - she loved the guy too much for that, loved what he did for HER. But at the back of her mind, that nagging little voice at the back of her head still spoke clearly: don't trust him not to mess up. (And Byrne said these characters were two-dimensional! :D )

And Tom... the 'Canada + Puck = Canuck' bit. As much as it's the BIGGEST pun in history... yeah, I can't find fault with it. Hell, I love it. The only thing I DO have problems is the idea of putting anyone other than Heather, Mac or their progeny/ingenue (if you had suggested MML in the suit, I prolly wouldn't have blinked an eyelash). But the fact is, Eugene doesn't need the suit. He's more than able and capable of doing his bit WITHOUT it. Not only that, putting Judd into the suit would - in my honest opinion - be akin to the original arguement against putting Heather in the suit: it would demean his character. (Although I, like many here, think that Mantlo's decision of putting Heather in the suit wasn't the best idea, I also agree that, sans Mac, Heather was the most logical choice for the suit). By putting Eugene in the suit - giving him all of Guardian/Vindicator's abilites - it takes away what made Eugene the successful hero he is, and says that (in my eyes) because he is a semi-human Dwarf, he is unable to play with the 'big boys' (a double-entendre pun in this case), despite the 90+ years of life experience he's aquired. It'd be akin to giving someone like Dr. Strange the Punisher's arsenel - pointless, extraneous firepower to someone who has proven time and time again that he doesn't need it.

In sum: mantle of 'Canuck' - REALLY good. Putting someone in the suit other than the Hudsons - not necessarily a bad idea. Putting PUCK in the suit - a counter-productive waste of time, and an insult to the character to boot.

And that is my two cents. Keep the change.

[Barnacle13]

I don't disagree with demeaning Puck by sticking him in the suit, but I think the Hudson's time has come and gone. Someone has to assume the lead role, and you can't rightly put MML in charge of the troops. He's too goody two shoes. It would have to be someone the originals could trust and someone the newbies could look up to. Only Puck or Sas does that for me if Mac or Heather isn't in the suit. And I don't think there is an Alpha Flight without that suit out in front blazing a path through the bad guys. If I had to pick between Heather or Mac I'd put Heather in the suit, but I'd really rather see them both moved into support roles. Now it wouldn't bother me at all if they could bring in someone else to put in the suit. I don't know who I'd suggest, but it bears some thought. Also, I don't think the Guardian suit necessarily has to be an EM suit. It could just be the fancy PJs with the big red maple leaf and the footies. Then you don't slap Puck in the face at all.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I say Mac as well for two reasons:

1. He designed and built the suit which means he is the one who would know how to use it to its full potential. Also, he could fix it on the fly if need be. Plus his scientific knowledge is a big asset in the field.

2. I agree Heather is a much stronger personality and less naive than Mac, therefore better suited to dealing with the government and its red tape. If anyone can keep Dept. H on the straight and narrow its her.

I guess that's true...it's not like the brainwashed her in the past and may be able to control her every action, even now....oh wait.... :wink:

Dana

Ah, but it wasn't the government that brainwashed her, it was the corrupt heads of Dept. H. If she were in charge of Dept. H then things like that wouldn't happen... unless of course Mac forgot to pick up milk on his way home from saving the world or something. :wink:

Ah...but notice I said "they"...indicating DEPT H....My thoughts are how can she keep H in line if they have Brainwashed and manipulated her in the past? See my point?

Dana

[varo]

*sigh*

you have to be kidding me that when asked whom i prefer in the suit turns into a gender biased, political topic.

and any character development from chuck austen on alpha does not count. sorry. (let us not forget "armor")

as far as discussing a mothers drive to nurture her child rather than being selfish enough to don a superhero suit, i won't listen to anyone unless they have children, because you just don't know unless you do. as a matter of fact i bet heather would beg mac not ot don the suit again either because of his track record in it.

[Northcott]

As for 'Heather, as a reluctant hero, not being the type to go out into dangerous situations because she's a mother': snotpuddles. Heather's a reluctant hero, just as her husband, not because she has the firepower and because she WANTS to, but because, to her, she NEEDS to.
(snip)
She didn't WANT to be a hero anymore than Mac did, but, to see not only the team strive forth as a unified entity, but to see her husband's dream strive despite what it caused her, she did what she felt she NEEDED to do to ensure piece of mind.


You tagged it better than I did, Allan. :)


By putting Eugene in the suit - giving him all of Guardian/Vindicator's abilites - it takes away what made Eugene the successful hero he is, and says that (in my eyes) because he is a semi-human Dwarf, he is unable to play with the 'big boys' (a double-entendre pun in this case), despite the 90+ years of life experience he's aquired. It'd be akin to giving someone like Dr. Strange the Punisher's arsenel - pointless, extraneous firepower to someone who has proven time and time again that he doesn't need it.

Yep. That's one way of looking at it. Another is that it utterly invalidates the literary function of the character. Superheroes fill symbolic and iconic niches in literature: when you change their schtick, you change the niche they fill, and so drastically change the character.

Batman doesn't stay the same character if he's got Green Lantern's ring. Who'd be more efficient in the Iron Man armour: Tony Stark or Steve Rogers? The genre isn't about efficiency -- it's about using fantasy to explore icons and archetypes of the human condition.

Judd succeeds because he is intelligent, highly-skilled, driven, brave, and unrelenting. He overcomes adversity, bot external and intrinsic, through his resourcefulness. To give him external solutions to his problems demeans the character by reducing his impact. If it were only about efficiency, everybody in Alpha should be wearing a version of the suit.


(BTW, it always irked me that they rebuilt it as easily as they did. The original implication was that Bochs, brilliant as he was, couldn't have built his Box unit without Hudson's help. Rebuilding the suit was arguably beyond Roger's abilities, even with Jefferies help. Never mind improving the design.)

[Northcott]

Look at healthcare as nurturing and the less violence and aggression, and I think a female icon for Canada is MORE symbolic. I don't think the flavor of sexism was intentional, but it was very subliminal, and very THERE.

Be careful in accusing others of sexism in the same breath that you attribute specific character attributes to one gender. A man can't be less violent and more nurturing than the stereotype?

I'm not out to smack you over the head with the sexism stick here, Kozz, but the above statement holds a great deal of irony.


She' is more diplomatic, but tougher. Mac himself, during the Neceinza resurrection, pointed out that Heather AT THE TIME had approximately 3X the experience with the suit

It always disappoints me how writers take advantage of "Marvel Time" to keep characters from aging, but then completely forget about it when it's convenient. Heather spent a lot of time in the suit, but it wasn't necessarily more than Mac.

Let's face it: Alpha as an IP has been the victim of some spectacularly bad writing jags. If we took everything the characters ever said or did as utter fact, the inconsistencies would likely cause a cerebral meltdown. I prefer to look at overall trends and character potential in future useage.


There's a matter of consistent characterization here too. Mac NEVER wanted to wear the suit.

Nor did Heather. Mac did, however, finally come to be at peace with his role when he made the switch from Vindicator to Guardian, as suggested by Michael. The "reluctant leader" argument doesn't hold water: both Heather and Mac were of that mindset. It's a staple of fiction (and even myth).


And in that characterization outlook, would dying from the suit give him motivation to wear it into battle? No.

Would losing in the boxing ring give a boxer motivation to go back in and train harder? Depends on what kind of a person you are. Champions may get knocked down, but they get back up. I prefer to see super-heroes in a similar light... works better for the genre, imo.


Given his brilliance as we see in the Guardian battlesuit, how can he contribute more to the fictional world, wearing the battlesuit in combat or inventing other things?

Why... both! Hank Pym, Tony Stark, Reed Richards (and even before comics, with Doc Savage) -- it's the tradition of the science hero: they are an active individual that uses their scientific miracles for the betterment of mankind through direct action.


Mac's discretion in member selection, even if forced by government backing, was questionable. There's a lot of examples that could be culled from 165 issues and other appearances, but I will cite only one: He admitted that he was NOT surprised that most of the original Omega Flight would have turned.

And Heather blew a hole in Snowbird. Does this mean Heather should be written as ruthless? Hell, no! I stick to my point on writing above.

Mac was not surprised that most of Omega turned. Why do you see this as flawed character judgement? If anything, it reinforces strong character judgement: he knew down to a person who was corruptable and who was not. Look which people were in Beta, Gamma, and Alpha respectively.

When finding beings of a given power level, you have a couple choices: You can leave them to run amok in society, or you can put them in a controlled atmosphere and measure the progress of their power even as you attempt to turn them into productive citizens.

Mac may have been a reluctant leader, but you're making a pretty good case for his having had remarkable vision and the wits to institute it. I never would have thought of that example. ;)


I could see Mac getting what he wanted, repeatedly, with the phrase, "OK, we'll see what Heather has to say about that." I think most people in the government would PREFER to work with Mac.

I'd feel really uncomfortable playing up either character like that. I see both as being strong personalities, though with different strengths. Complimenting each other and being stronger together than the sum of the parts -- not one leaning on the other as a crutch.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with Mac playing househusband anyway. He can do his research with a babysack for little Emma...don't know why, but I've always called the baby that. See the tyke, watching over his shoulder, learning tech before she can walk.

I think that's a beautiful vision. :) If I ever get the chance, mind if I use it someday?


As a matter of confidence, who would you rather follow into battle, the creator of the battlesuit who died wearing it or someone with 4 to 6 times the successful experience with it in combat?

Most of the Marvel Universe would be more accstomed to Heather as leader, including the Avengers, Doc Strange, Spider-Man...anyone they met in the Infinity crossovers, etc etc

Addressed with my comment on Marvel Time above.


If writer's stay true to the character, he SHOULD not be in the suit, which is my bottom line for voting against him.

My opinion is of the opposite slant: to be true to the character, he must be in the suit. He is of the science hero archetype; the active font of knowledge that does good in the world through direct application. This is the character that had the vision to create a national team, and create a national organization dedicated to a dream akin to Xavier's. He's the character who had the force of personality to hold the original, squabbling Alpha together -- who were, and remain, representative of Canada's different squabbling political factions, which is why they continue to "gel" and feel more right than the various Alpha creations since that time. Roger Bochs and Eugene Judd didn't just follow Mac because of a paycheck: they were inspired by him.


Heather, from her first appearance in Uncanny X-Men 139, was written to develop as team leader.

:?: Where do you get that impression?


Byrne, Mantlo, Hundall, Lobdell and Furman all continued that development. I don't want to see their work thrown aside, along with the thought and time and satisfaction I have invested in the development of that character.

I especially don't want to see it misused or thrown away because Marvel Powers that Be think it takes a male character to be an iconic hero.

If we're to talk about respecting other people's work, and thought being tossed aside, Heather should never have ended up in the suit in the first place.

I take issue with the idea that to be a hero or to be a leader that a woman must act like the sexist male stereotype and run about blowing things up or beating on people. Or that to be a hero she must engage in these things. Contrary to your statement above about Heather having been built up as team leader, that development didn't occur until Byrne's solo attempt at Alpha Flight -- and even then he never meant her to don the suit.

[Northcott]

I don't disagree with demeaning Puck by sticking him in the suit, but I think the Hudson's time has come and gone. Someone has to assume the lead role, and you can't rightly put MML in charge of the troops. He's too goody two shoes. It would have to be someone the originals could trust and someone the newbies could look up to. Only Puck or Sas does that for me if Mac or Heather isn't in the suit. And I don't think there is an Alpha Flight without that suit out in front blazing a path through the bad guys. If I had to pick between Heather or Mac I'd put Heather in the suit, but I'd really rather see them both moved into support roles. Now it wouldn't bother me at all if they could bring in someone else to put in the suit. I don't know who I'd suggest, but it bears some thought. Also, I don't think the Guardian suit necessarily has to be an EM suit. It could just be the fancy PJs with the big red maple leaf and the footies. Then you don't slap Puck in the face at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ideas you suggest sound very much like what we saw in Volumes 2 and 3: toss out the old team and replace them with all new members -- save one or two icons from the old guard (and perhaps even modifying those).



As far as discussing a mothers drive to nurture her child rather than being selfish enough to don a superhero suit, i won't listen to anyone unless they have children, because you just don't know unless you do. as a matter of fact i bet heather would beg mac not ot don the suit again either because of his track record in it.

It cuts both ways. Being a responsible and compassionate fellow, do you not think James would also be very hesitant? I'd rather see family dynamics included in the make-up of the characters, though, and still keep them active. Adds new dimension to the leaders and reinforces that family feel. (Damn, what a cool uncle Judd would make!)

[varo]

good points.


now that i think about it, i think with everything we have seen from the last 3 incarnations of alpha and the hudsons newborn at home i would like to change my answer.

the hudsons in a administration position within the new dept. h and the suit going on.......


mml.


heres why. it was never confirmed but it looks like mml has no powers of his own (thunder forming the league of super powered animals.....*sigh* and mml with the guns in #12)


i think the suit is more of the icon status rather than the person in it.

[varo]

and northcott let me ask you a few insider questions if you don't mind. i read somewher on these boards that you were real close to landing this latest series, not sure if that is true or not.

also, how does submitting a proposal on a series work? does marvel put out a open letter for proposals on a series they are considering launching, or do creators go to the publisher with a idea, and is then considered?

[Northcott]

and northcott let me ask you a few insider questions if you don't mind. i read somewher on these boards that you were real close to landing this latest series, not sure if that is true or not.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades. Back when the Epic line was being developed, J Torres and I were in talks with editorial folk about re-launching Alpha. The feeling was that the time was right, and they wanted a reboot of a more "classic" Alpha Flight, though we were going to be starting with only a few members of the original team (Mac, Heather, Sas, Puck, Twins).

The proposal was submitted, we recieved word that they liked it but wanted to see changes: two more revisions were sent in over the next month and a half as ideas continued to bounce around, and then we received word that a "big name" had said he wanted the series, and so we were booted. This big name turned out to be Scott Lobdell.

Note: In all likelihood this was in no way Mr. Lobdell's fault. I sincerely doubt that he had any inkling that there was another proposal floating around out there. From what I understand it was an innocent miscommunication between editorial staff. Our proposal may have been first, but Mr. Lobdell's name held more sway and so we were summarily axed.


also, how does submitting a proposal on a series work? does marvel put out a open letter for proposals on a series they are considering launching, or do creators go to the publisher with a idea, and is then considered?

Relationship with an editor is key. It's all in who you know. J had been doing work for Marvel for some time, and so had some contacts there. If you really want to see what his stuff is like, though, I suggest checking out his indy work. His website is at: http://www.jtorresonline.com

My personal favourite is his "Sidekicks" work. Brilliant stuff imho. Wonderfully simple and touching, yet remains perfect all-ages writing. I really hoped Alpha would take on this kind of tone. C.B. Cebulski, an assistant editor at marvel, used to be the editor of the small press company that originally published Sidekicks. From what I recall, he was part of J's original "in" at Marvel, which expanded after he did work with them. (Being nominated for an Eisner Award didn't hurt, either)

As it stands, I really doubt that anybody at Marvel knows me from a hole in the ground. :) J (and a couple other writers) are fond of my work, so keep trying to get me in on projects. As it stands I seem to have the mark of Cain on me: everytime it looks like a project's a go, something puts the breaks on it. :)

So now we're waiting on word from Image (so bloody close!!!) while drumming up another proposal for Vertigo.

Long and short of it: If you want to throw a pitch for series, they've got to know you first. If you want them to know you, you have to be in the industry. To be in the industry, you've got to work in the industry -- which means either self-publishing or small-press publishing for most people. Some folks manage to step in after showing their portfolio/writing samples around a couple places, but those guys are the very lucky minority.

Edit: For a deeper look at J, what he's written, and what he's currently writing, check out: http://www.comicarts.org/innerview.php

[varo]

awesome. thx for the input. i was asking more out of curiousity, i have 0 intrest in the comic book industry or getting into it. i was just wondering how a series comes about from concept to monthly title being out on the market.

if only you guys would have got the title. i bet it would still be out. *sigh*

so any chance you and j. torres go back to marvel and say "alright, our turn" :lol:

[HappyCanuck]

I don't disagree with demeaning Puck by sticking him in the suit, but I think the Hudson's time has come and gone. Someone has to assume the lead role, and you can't rightly put MML in charge of the troops. He's too goody two shoes. It would have to be someone the originals could trust and someone the newbies could look up to. Only Puck or Sas does that for me if Mac or Heather isn't in the suit. And I don't think there is an Alpha Flight without that suit out in front blazing a path through the bad guys. If I had to pick between Heather or Mac I'd put Heather in the suit, but I'd really rather see them both moved into support roles. Now it wouldn't bother me at all if they could bring in someone else to put in the suit. I don't know who I'd suggest, but it bears some thought. Also, I don't think the Guardian suit necessarily has to be an EM suit. It could just be the fancy PJs with the big red maple leaf and the footies. Then you don't slap Puck in the face at all.

I agree that MML doesn't have the right atmosphere to be leader. That's why I also suggest making him a figure-head character and leaving the leading to Judd or Langkowski.

As for putting Puck in the suit sans EM generators, I think ppl would get confused easily why this little Guardian dude is just bouncing around without shooting. besides, if you're going that root, might as well put everyone in the suit (not the EM, just the costume), but then you have the same argument we all heard against the team uniforms in AF 104.

[Northcott]

awesome. thx for the input. i was asking more out of curiousity, i have 0 intrest in the comic book industry or getting into it. i was just wondering how a series comes about from concept to monthly title being out on the market.

Short answer: The waiting is killing me. I really hate the indecisive period that precedes getting something done. Depends entirely on circumstance, too. From what I've heard with other folks, it varies case by case. Sometimes the company has something they want to launch and approach certain creators. Sometimes it's the other way around.


if only you guys would have got the title. i bet it would still be out. *sigh*

*shrug* There's no profit in going down that path of speculation. Might be, might not. Best to let it lie and move on. There are too many "could have beens" in life. :) Speculating on them is a killer, and never accounts for all the things that could have happened.


so any chance you and j. torres go back to marvel and say "alright, our turn" :lol:

I'd snatch up the opportunity in a minute if it came my way. J... perhaps not so much. From what I understand there's a kind of moritorium on publishing a given book or character for a couple years after it last fails.

[Barnacle13]

Ed,
My lineup would have more than just Judd and Sas. I'd have Snowbird and Talisman from V1, also. I'd throw in a V2 (Flex) and V3 (Puck) character to round things out for the newer readers. That coupled with many originals in administrative roles(that clearly demonstrate their competence) and an Omega Flight comprised of ex-Alphans and I think readers old and new could appreciate the title. V3 failed because the writing was poor. Had the originals jetisoned ANAD into space with the Plodex and the stories not improved it still would have failed. Folks might have been excited after #6, but when #7 arrived on the stands....imagine the great waste it would've been for Puck and Snowbird to face off against wax museum dummies. Still sucks for a story line and doesn't keep readers dropping their hard earned cash. V3 might have had a chance if the first arc hadn't been a collosal 6 issue arc that accomplished very little. Most of the life rafts had shoved off with one or two occupants by the end of that arc. The ship was sinking for the rest of us and there wasn't much we could do but listen to the band or jump into the icy waters overboard. Next launch needs to catch fans quick and hold them with at best a 2 issue arc, like going after Wolverine for the murder of Northstar, in the end completely severing ties to Marvels SuperMammal. Follow that with unearthing info on Weapon X or Zodiac and big battles there. Then hit Alpha where it hurts...bring on an ex-Alpha Omega Flight to rip their hearts out (not literally - Sas quit rubbing your chest). Fact is a good story will keep folks coming. Couple it with great art and you're golden!


Tom

[kozzi24]

Heather, from her first appearance in Uncanny X-Men 139, was written to develop as team leader.


Where do you get that impression?
Very clearly the head of household and the more organized spouse

[Northcott]

Very clearly the head of household and the more organized spouse

Don't you think it's a stretch of conjecture to spin a character moment from the days of compressed storytelling -- depicting someone who was at the time no more than a "flavour" character -- into a long-reaching plot device? Later decisions may have been based on earlier character portrayals, but I don't believe that the character was originally depicted in that manner for that specific purpose.

[jay042]

As for who should get stuck with the desk job at Dept H. I really think Gentry is the natural choice. Between his goverment connections and his obvious compassion for the mutant and metahuman population, Gentry should be the one who reigns in the bearuacratic monster of Dept. H.

[Ben]

As for who should get stuck with the desk job at Dept H. I really think Gentry is the natural choice. Between his goverment connections and his obvious compassion for the mutant and metahuman population, Gentry should be the one who reigns in the bearuacratic monster of Dept. H.

I agree, his character was really good for this role. Now the FUNNY thing is that Gentry was originally supposed to be Mac under cover...so I guess by default Mac is the winner of the desk job ;)

Ben

[kozzi24]

Look at healthcare as nurturing and the less violence and aggression, and I think a female icon for Canada is MORE symbolic. I don't think the flavor of sexism was intentional, but it was very subliminal, and very THERE.

Be careful in accusing others of sexism in the same breath that you attribute specific character attributes to one gender. A man can't be less violent and more nurturing than the stereotype?

I'm not out to smack you over the head with the sexism stick here, Kozz, but the above statement holds a great deal of irony.


I was aware of potential interpretation of sexism in that statement even when I made it. The difference, in my intent at least, was in keeping with the standards of "literary" and "iconic".
Several statements have been made by various people that Mac is just "more iconic" than Heather. That's where I find some sexism...because it seems to favor examples that women can only be iconic if they are representing nature, mother nature, motherhood, or original sin...AND I DO NOT THINK THAT WAS ANYONE'S INTENTION. But the statement "Mac is more iconic" is opinion, not fact.

Taken in the literary context of comics, I believe Heather better represents Canada than Mac does, in specific ways she has been characterized in the past, and also in the part of literary contrast as representing Canada as Steve Rogers represents the US. Part of that falls along the gender lines in assigning gender characteristics to the two countries in question, and the two specific countries in question scream for obvious gender identification in their international personas.

But just one specific here...Heather always tried to restrict her team's operations to Canada..in both The Avengers: The Crossing line Russian sub tale, and prior to that in when Sasquatch, Shaman and Aurora crossed the border into the States to rescue Puck. Canada never invaded Iraq, despite their potential interests in doing so

[kozzi24]

Quote:
There's a matter of consistent characterization here too. Mac NEVER wanted to wear the suit.


Nor did Heather. Mac did, however, finally come to be at peace with his role when he made the switch from Vindicator to Guardian, as suggested by Michael. The "reluctant leader" argument doesn't hold water: both Heather and Mac were of that mindset. It's a staple of fiction (and even myth).

She looked at herself in the mirror while holding the suit up in front of her, checking the look out, in Byrne's run. She recognized it as a tool that could better enable her role in the Flight. She was not happy to have Bochs and Jeffries repair it at first, but she donned the suit quite willingly, and the story I remember was one of Heather insisting to wear the suit against the advice of people such as Puck and Wolverine, not a story where all of the Flight was defeated, and their only hope for salvation was for Heather to "temporarily" don the suit and save their butts "that one time."

There's a lot less reluctance on Heather's part than Mac's: he did get Sean Benard to wear the prototype in First Flight.

Circa Mac's first return when Mac stated Heather had three times the experience weilding the suit, I don't think you can fall back on protests of Marvel time.

Mac had gone after Wolverine in X-Men #109, and led the team in two consecutive Alpha stories in X-Men. He fought the Ravager in 2-in-1, Tundra in AF #1, the Master in AF 2-4, then Omega Flight in #11-12. That's a total of 7 combat missions.

Heather handled more than that from AF #32 to 90. Probably not three times as much, but her experience was greater by the time the writer wrote that dialogue.

[kozzi24]

Mac was not surprised that most of Omega turned. Why do you see this as flawed character judgement? If anything, it reinforces strong character judgement: he knew down to a person who was corruptable and who was not. Look which people were in Beta, Gamma, and Alpha respectively.

When finding beings of a given power level, you have a couple choices: You can leave them to run amok in society, or you can put them in a controlled atmosphere and measure the progress of their power even as you attempt to turn them into productive citizens.

Mac may have been a reluctant leader, but you're making a pretty good case for his having had remarkable vision and the wits to institute it. I never would have thought of that example.

[Mac] is the character that had the vision to create a national team, and create a national organization dedicated to a dream akin to Xavier's. He's the character who had the force of personality to hold the original, squabbling Alpha together -- who were, and remain, representative of Canada's different squabbling political factions, which is why they continue to "gel" and feel more right than the various Alpha creations since that time. Roger Bochs and Eugene Judd didn't just follow Mac because of a paycheck: they were inspired by him.

Differing interpretations of the same things here, Ed...I think all this substantiates the argument why Mac should be in the office and the lab, not on the battlelines, so he can employ his strengths more and continue this successful line of work.



Quote kozzi24:
I could see Mac getting what he wanted, repeatedly, with the phrase, "OK, we'll see what Heather has to say about that." I think most people in the government would PREFER to work with Mac.

Quote Northcott: I'd feel really uncomfortable playing up either character like that. I see both as being strong personalities, though with different strengths. Complimenting each other and being stronger together than the sum of the parts -- not one leaning on the other as a crutch.
Depending on how it was written...such a line from Mac would certainly make any beaurocrat think twice about the idea they've brought to Mac, especially if they are specifically circumventing Heather. It has a very true ring of office politics that readers would identify with...AND it would be comics with judicious and not overdone repetition, AND characterize the bond between Mac and Heather. Heather, of course, would be using the same line in reverse in other circumstances.


Quote:
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Mac playing househusband anyway. He can do his research with a babysack for little Emma...don't know why, but I've always called the baby that. See the tyke, watching over his shoulder, learning tech before she can walk.


I think that's a beautiful vision. If I ever get the chance, mind if I use it someday?
Just make sure the editor knows where it came from, and the public credit can all be yours.


My opinion is of the opposite slant: to be true to the character, he must be in the suit. He is of the science hero archetype;
Archetypes can be useful, but must they be followed exactly in every title. Alpha has quite a few other archetypes, much more ingrained in the human consciousness than such a modern archetype.



If we're to talk about respecting other people's work, and thought being tossed aside, Heather should never have ended up in the suit in the first place...Contrary to your statement above about Heather having been built up as team leader, that development didn't occur until Byrne's solo attempt at Alpha Flight -- and even then he never meant her to don the suit.
So he said at the time, despite some hints to the contrary. His quote I remember was to the effect of "as an artist, making that suit work on a woman boggled the imagination". I don't claim to know either way, but I think it is possible that Byrne may have been trying to defer guesses on future plans. He left it quite possible for Heather to don the battlesuit, and Mantlo provided her with character motivation for donning the suit before she did.

[kozzi24]

Very clearly the head of household and the more organized spouse

Don't you think it's a stretch of conjecture to spin a character moment from the days of compressed storytelling -- depicting someone who was at the time no more than a "flavour" character -- into a long-reaching plot device? Later decisions may have been based on earlier character portrayals, but I don't believe that the character was originally depicted in that manner for that specific purpose.

While you are right, in Heather's case, the pattern holds too well for it to be ignored. That was her first appearance. In her second, she was activating Marrina and Puck as Alphas, so intentional or not, the pattern just holds too true.

[Northcott]

Before all else, Kozz, let me say that it's been a pleasure doing this little back and forth with you. It's quite nice to be able to argue a point with someone so thoroughly, and have it kept so even in temperment. Thanks. :)


That's where I find some sexism...because it seems to favor examples that women can only be iconic if they are representing nature, mother nature, motherhood, or original sin...AND I DO NOT THINK THAT WAS ANYONE'S INTENTION. But the statement "Mac is more iconic" is opinion, not fact.

I see your point. It just seemed a little odd when juxtaposed with what it was originally set to oppose. I do agree entirely on what you state above, though: frequently that's too often the only route left female characters. Either that or the over-the-top "blow things up" heroic scale, which has become just as much of a stereotype.

For what it's worth, I feel that Mac is more iconic, but not for gender-based reasons. Nor do I believe that Heather's any more likely to drop the suit purely for parenting reasons than Mac is.

Where I see Mac's edge in iconic status is twofold:
1) He's the original. This is entirely a personal prejudice that I admit freely; I have a strong preference for seed characters as opposed to derivatives that appear later. Even as a kid I preferred Jay Garrick over Barry Allen, and Allan Scott over Hal Jordan. :) That's not entirely out of whack with public sentiment, since many readers prefer Hal Jordan to the other GLs. (I think my geek factor just jumped about 10 points just typing that sentance)

2) Heather doesn't strike me as being much more of a nuturing figure than Mac. There's no real edge in that. Mac, however, is far more representative of Canada's drive in new technology, which has been a part of our national identity since the period in which he was created -- and has remained such since that time. More specifically, representitive of our future, new energy sources, and the growing energy economy.

Mac doesn't just represent Canada since Trudeaumania, but is representative of our present and our future. He not only touches upon the technological and environmental aspects, but accurately reflects the idealism and progressive thinking that have been hallmarks of our nation's identity since the 60's. Heather is reactive, Mac is proactive.


Taken in the literary context of comics, I believe Heather better represents Canada than Mac does, in specific ways she has been characterized in the past, and also in the part of literary contrast as representing Canada as Steve Rogers represents the US. Part of that falls along the gender lines in assigning gender characteristics to the two countries in question, and the two specific countries in question scream for obvious gender identification in their international personas.

That one I just don't get. Identification by gender is, once again, the sexism that Varo was nailed for. Identification by personality traits seems to be far more productive.

In that, the contrast with Steve Rogers holds just as well (if not better) with Mac: one a soldier, the other a doctor; one a force to be reckoned with, the other a progressive thinker; both idealists, but with ideals that differ as much as they overlap.


Canada never invaded Iraq, despite their potential interests in doing so

Nope, but we did go for Afghanistan like gangbusters. A soldier from Newfoundland set a new world's record in long-distance sniper accuracy, saving an American platoon by taking out a Taliban mortar team 1.4 miles away. Joined in with Sarajavo(sp?), too.

It's not that we're adverse to invading a place. We're just picky about the "why" of it. :) The truth is rather the reverse of what's implied: Canada is extremely active on the international scene, though more often as armed peacekeepers. Our relative uninvolvement has been a blip on the radar which is being rectified at the moment.


Circa Mac's first return when Mac stated Heather had three times the experience weilding the suit, I don't think you can fall back on protests of Marvel time.

Mac had gone after Wolverine in X-Men #109, and led the team in two consecutive Alpha stories in X-Men. He fought the Ravager in 2-in-1, Tundra in AF #1, the Master in AF 2-4, then Omega Flight in #11-12. That's a total of 7 combat missions.

Seven printed. At this point we can either assume that he was entirely inactive in between these appearances, or that he saw at least sporadic action in between. The latter seems more plausible to me. They simply didn't have a series, and so any adventures weren't going to be covered.

So I chalk it up to Marvel Time, and the way in which it's often handled by writers. (Ever notice that characters don't age at the same pace?)


Just make sure the editor knows where it came from, and the public credit can all be yours.

Thanks. :) Considering that it could possibly be years by the time I get to use it (if ever), just drop me a line if I forget.


Archetypes can be useful, but must they be followed exactly in every title. Alpha has quite a few other archetypes, much more ingrained in the human consciousness than such a modern archetype.

If someone's going to monkey with an archetype, they'd best understand how it ticks before they take it apart. As the old saying goes: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Archetypes evolve into what they are for a reason.

The science hero isn't all that new, either. S/he's got at least a couple centuries under the collective belt, and far more when you consider the prototype that preceeded him/her: magic being a stand-in for science in fantasy literature and myth.

The science hero may be relatively new, but the theme is old as time itself: Man utilizing special knowledge combined with direct action to better the condition of the human race. When you remove the "direct action" portion of that, you remove the heart of the archetype. People don't write superhero comics about Marie Cure or Albert Einstein. We've got Reed Richards and Tony Stark.

Real science bores people to tears. If you base a character in the more realistic element of labwork, you pretty much kill their appeal.

[kozzi24]

Before all else, Kozz, let me say that it's been a pleasure doing this little back and forth with you. It's quite nice to be able to argue a point with someone so thoroughly, and have it kept so even in temperment. Thanks. :)


I see it as debate rather than argument...we both seem to know we're talking about literary characters and conventions.


I see your point. It just seemed a little odd when juxtaposed with what it was originally set to oppose. I do agree entirely on what you state above, though: frequently that's too often the only route left female characters. Either that or the over-the-top "blow things up" heroic scale, which has become just as much of a stereotype.

In my opinion, Marvel has only three truly "iconic" female heroes: Storm, as "weather goddess", Pheonix as "Earth mother, both creator and destroyer of life" and Sue Storm in the context of being the air spirit in context to the "earth fire and water spirits represented by Thing, Torch and Reed. There may be more, but I haven't consciously connected to them. If I stretch it a bit, I could say that Wasp could approach iconic or archetypical...but not in any positive way. Her flirtatiousness could be likened to original sin, while her power is that to get smaller in the eyes of men.


For what it's worth, I feel that Mac is more iconic, but not for gender-based reasons. Nor do I believe that Heather's any more likely to drop the suit purely for parenting reasons than Mac is.

I think Heather is LESS likely to drop the suit for purely parental reasons.

Heather came from a large family, and that family took in Elizabeth Twoyoungman seemingly without hesitation. Heather's background is thus more of a "tribal" atmosphere of an extended family that helps each other out a lot more than we North Americans generally see these days.

We know little of Mac's family background, so little that we're left to assume that he was either (A) the only child of single parents or (B) not from this time at all, but someone who came back from the future to provide humanity--and very likely Canada specifically--the advanced technology of his battlesuit.


Heather doesn't strike me as being much more of a nuturing figure than Mac.
I agree entirely with that. If you want to follow Dana's pattern of Alpha as family (cringe...lol) Heather's the Mom home with the kids--and just look how well the kids get along when left on their own, such as the assembly in V1#12...lol). She's the one setting them straight, making them clean their rooms and doing their homework. I just don't see Heather as a "wait till your father gets home" kind of Mom...she'll deal with things on the spot. Mac would probably come home from a hard day on the lab, get an appraisal of the family day over dinner and probably retire to his study while Heather puts the kids to bed. Heather IS more reactive, especially when she has a goal in mind, and a great part of their relationship background was that Mac was pretty blissful, aloof and inattentive, enough that the relationship only developed because of Heather's pursuit.



Taken in the literary context of comics, I believe Heather better represents Canada than Mac does, in specific ways she has been characterized in the past, and also in the part of literary contrast as representing Canada as Steve Rogers represents the US. Part of that falls along the gender lines in assigning gender characteristics to the two countries in question, and the two specific countries in question scream for obvious gender identification in their international personas.

That one I just don't get. Identification by gender is, once again, the sexism. Identification by personality traits seems to be far more productive.
I think the sexism that was referred to earlier was more simple in pointing to Mac as generally more "iconic". Basically, the literary theme that does fall along the gender lines that I refer to is kind of an accurate dig at my own country, that the US all too often exhibits Alpha male aggression. More than many Americans, I do know Canada contributes to the world stage. I also know they do not contribute so aggressively. Funny anecdote from one of the business trips to the UK (I work for an antique buyer)...one dealer in Newark was being rather aloof to my boss as he was asking about trade discounts, etc. The seller asked what part of the states we were from. I said "Actually, we're Canadians...Nova Scotia." The dealer's response was, "Oh, that's OK then." And only THEN did he give my boss discounts that are typically routine in that trade.


Seven printed. At this point we can either assume that he was entirely inactive in between these appearances, or that he saw at least sporadic action in between. The latter seems more plausible to me. They simply didn't have a series, and so any adventures weren't going to be covered.
So I chalk it up to Marvel Time, and the way in which it's often handled by writers. (Ever notice that characters don't age at the same pace?)
He did make other appearances, such as FF #220 and Contest of Champions...however, these were not active combat missions. Byrne's AF#1 specifically filled in the gaps between the varied appearances, and his approach to AF--Mac was not in the suit every issue as team members took care of their own adventures, would indicate that he was not proactively seeking adventure.

The science hero may be relatively new, but the theme is old as time itself: Man utilizing special knowledge combined with direct action to better the condition of the human race. When you remove the "direct action" portion of that, you remove the heart of the archetype. People don't write superhero comics about Marie Cure or Albert Einstein. We've got Reed Richards and Tony Stark.

Prometheus (sp?) didn't CREATE fire, he STOLE it. I look at archetypoes as universally familiar, as much on subliminal levels as conscious ones, which is part of the reason archetypes are more common in pure fantasy than pure s/f. Lord of the Rings is the best example of archtypes, with reluctant hero, wise old man, skilled helpers, imposing black-clad
villains, etc.) Tribal people in non-developed countries would recognize those patterns on a subliminal level, but would not grasp the image of a scientific hero as intuitively. I look at the scientific hero more as a relatively moden convention, and most early s/f such as by Wells and Verne specifically did not rely on the scientific hero...there was always a helper or more human POV for the story, such as Bedford to Cavor in Wells' First Men on the Moon. The story could not have happened without Cavor's science, but the more recognizably "archetypical" hero was Bedford. Like you said, "science bores people". It definitely needs a human face, and I think that is precisely why for all its convention and literary symbolism, it falls short of being truly archetypical or iconic.

[Northcott]

I see it as debate rather than argument...we both seem to know we're talking about literary characters and conventions.

I've spent too long on aggressive message boards. I expect any disagreement, no matter how civil or thoroughly thought-out, to degrade into mud-flinging by now. :)


In my opinion, Marvel has only three truly "iconic" female heroes: Storm, as "weather goddess", Pheonix as "Earth mother, both creator and destroyer of life" and Sue Storm in the context of being the air spirit in context to the "earth fire and water spirits represented by Thing, Torch and Reed. There may be more, but I haven't consciously connected to them. If I stretch it a bit, I could say that Wasp could approach iconic or archetypical...but not in any positive way. Her flirtatiousness could be likened to original sin, while her power is that to get smaller in the eyes of men.

A fan once pointed out the elemental correspondences to Stan Lee, expecting some kind of answer in regard to a query on symbolism he'd made. Instead, he got a reaction of surprise from Lee. He'd never seen the correspondence before. :)

I'd be tempted to mark Phoenix down as a destroyer -- no Earth Mother. Purely celestial. More along the lines of Kali-ma; the destroyer who makes way for new things. Her power rarely created, but often ended.

I think that playing Wasp up with those elements could well end her relevance as a character; it would be like throwing her back to the 60's (when Sue's chief power seemed to be to turn invisible and wait for the boys to rescue her). Wasp hit her stride when played up very similar to the preferred vision of Heather, but with a more playful streak.

How's that for getting off track? :) I agree, though; strong archetypes are rarely used with female characters in comics. I think DC has a much better track record on that front, but the unfortunate truth is that many writers simply don't know what to do with an archetypical character the moment that the pattern is grafted onto a female form... which is just bloody sad.


I think Heather is LESS likely to drop the suit for purely parental reasons.

Heather came from a large family, and that family took in Elizabeth Twoyoungman seemingly without hesitation. Heather's background is thus more of a "tribal" atmosphere of an extended family that helps each other out a lot more than we North Americans generally see these days.

Speaking as someone that comes from a huge extended family, I'd say that matter has little impact on whether or not she'd stay in the suit. It doesn't make her less likely to drop the suit.


We know little of Mac's family background, so little that we're left to assume that he was either (A) the only child of single parents or (B) not from this time at all, but someone who came back from the future to provide humanity--and very likely Canada specifically--the advanced technology of his battlesuit.

Oddly enough, I think I've done more to flesh him out for my little fanfic comic project than all the writers of Alpha Flight combined. Never thought of it in that light before. What a bloody shame.


I agree entirely with that. If you want to follow Dana's pattern of Alpha as family (cringe...lol) Heather's the Mom home with the kids--and just look how well the kids get along when left on their own, such as the assembly in V1#12...lol). She's the one setting them straight, making them clean their rooms and doing their homework. I just don't see Heather as a "wait till your father gets home" kind of Mom...she'll deal with things on the spot. Mac would probably come home from a hard day on the lab, get an appraisal of the family day over dinner and probably retire to his study while Heather puts the kids to bed. Heather IS more reactive, especially when she has a goal in mind, and a great part of their relationship background was that Mac was pretty blissful, aloof and inattentive, enough that the relationship only developed because of Heather's pursuit.

I had a very different impression: that the relationship wasn't pursued because Heather was underage and Mac would be doing hard time for it. That much was pretty much stated overtly in the stories that explored their early days. As a result, Heather's family was far from pleased that she married Mac.

I've never seen Mac as aloof and inattentive: if anything the man is very emotionally involved in what transpires around him, and extremely idealistic. As a parental figure, I see him as being more permissive; more likely to discuss and use logic to sway someone than to simply lay down the law and say "it's my way or the highway". In a leadership role he may be more direct, but my parental impression of him is different.


I think the sexism that was referred to earlier was more simple in pointing to Mac as generally more "iconic". Basically, the literary theme that does fall along the gender lines that I refer to is kind of an accurate dig at my own country, that the US all too often exhibits Alpha male aggression.

And there's the trap of the paradigm; defining national identity by stereotyped gender roles innately leads to a sexist bias in character definition. Though I do see your point. :)

But when it comes to Alpha, being a proud, flag-waving Canadian, I don't necessarily want to see my nation, or the team that represents them, as being necessarily defined in contrasting definition with the USA. That's a mistake that many Canadians also make, as our national identity is more subtlety than trumpet blare. The elements of shared ideals are silently understood, almost a whisper, that makes it in odd turns easier to define by pointing to something more brash and saying: "See that? That's all fine and well, but it's not what we are." Much like trying to define love or bravery, it's a sense of something rather than a proclaimation.

To that end, I'd love to see the team, in and of itself, representative of the nation -- without the need to define the nation in the light of the view of others. Let the definition of self come from the self. Let others perceive it as they may.


I said "Actually, we're Canadians...Nova Scotia." The dealer's response was, "Oh, that's OK then." And only THEN did he give my boss discounts that are typically routine in that trade.

Could also be a Commonwealth thing. In spite of our having grown as our own nation, there's still a tie of sentimentalitiy with other Commonwealth nations. We even have some shared news programming with Britain and Australia... though only on the CBC.


He did make other appearances, such as FF #220 and Contest of Champions...however, these were not active combat missions. Byrne's AF#1 specifically filled in the gaps between the varied appearances

Did he? I was under the impression that the issues were linear, with the first appearing after Alpha's last appearance in another title... revelations of Sas and Aurora's relationship having come from that direction.


Prometheus (sp?) didn't CREATE fire, he STOLE it.

Not to be rude, but; what's your point? I don't deny his mythical role, but I didn't mention him, either.


Tribal people in non-developed countries would recognize those patterns on a subliminal level, but would not grasp the image of a scientific hero as intuitively.

No, but folklore and myth does recognize the archetype of the hero who utilizes wit, courage, and direct action to succeed: the precursor of the science hero. A new hero for an evolving world.

Whereas the other characters fill other roles: Judd may have great wit and knowledge, but he depends upon physical prowess and combat skill for his triumphs -- he's a warrior. Sas fills the human fascination with superhuman might, the twins with flight and beauty, Snowbird the land and demi-divinity, Marrina with aquatic myth, etc.

In a fictional world where characters of archetypical portrayal and mythic ability roam, the human hero that leads them (much like Jason and the Argonauts) must him or herself be a Marvel. In the context of the modern hero, the evolution of the science hero from traditional folklore roots provides a perfect modern contrast, pulling old myths into a new era. The consummate bridge between old and new.

(You do realize that the geek police are coming for us, even as I type this message, don't you?) ;)


I look at the scientific hero more as a relatively moden convention, and most early s/f such as by Wells and Verne specifically did not rely on the scientific hero...there was always a helper or more human POV for the story, such as Bedford to Cavor in Wells' First Men on the Moon. The story could not have happened without Cavor's science, but the more recognizably "archetypical" hero was Bedford. Like you said, "science bores people". It definitely needs a human face, and I think that is precisely why for all its convention and literary symbolism, it falls short of being truly archetypical or iconic.

My memory's foggy: did not the Time Traveller take a more active role? In the pulp era we then have a host of them as the archetype forms; science less feared, and more looked to for answers. Instead of Mary Shelley's pseudo-science inbred with occultism and gone horribly awry in the form of a superhuman monster, we have a superhuman figure in Doctor Savage who is a learned scientist and a modern miracle of human accomplishment.

As you said, science needs a human face. It has, for better or worse, become an ingrained part of the human condition over the centuries, gaining full prominence in the last century. When things go wrong, we now turn to science for answers.

In the fantasy of a super-heroic world, where direct action from iconic heroes representing the fascinations of humanity is a cornerstone of the genre's appeal, it is a natural extension that the science hero take their place as a modern link amongst ancient symbols. Whether from gamma bombs, irradiated spiders, or rockets launched from other planets, most superheroes have at least a touch of science-hero in their origin. They are key to the genre. Disregarding their potency reduces loses some of the genre's heart.

[kozzi24]

I've spent too long on aggressive message boards. I expect any disagreement, no matter how civil or thoroughly thought-out, to degrade into mud-flinging by now. :)
I don't claim to be above that, I just seldom do it first or more than twice on a single issue...lol. There's got to be something I perceive as intended as personal from the other person, or such a long term pattern of idiocy or ignorance that I feel it NEEDS to be pointed out


A fan once pointed out the elemental correspondences to Stan Lee, expecting some kind of answer in regard to a query on symbolism he'd made. Instead, he got a reaction of surprise from Lee. He'd never seen the correspondence before. :)
I think this reinforces the true archetypes of a lot of the Lee/Kirby/Dikto creations...these elements were SO universal, the creator was not fully aware he was using them. And Lee'ss memory about things was always "sketchy" by his own account, although -I- think much of that was due to Lee's downplaying of the contributions of Dikto and Kirby and others to the initial creations.


Wasp hit her stride when played up very similar to the preferred vision of Heather, but with a more playful streak.
I loved the Stern era Wasp too.


I agree, though; strong archetypes are rarely used with female characters in comics. I think DC has a much better track record on that front, but the unfortunate truth is that many writers simply don't know what to do with an archetypical character the moment that the pattern is grafted onto a female form... which is just bloody sad.
For archetypes in the truest sense, there are more male archetypes than female.


I think Heather is LESS likely to drop the suit for purely parental reasons. Speaking as someone that comes from a huge extended family, I'd say that matter has little impact on whether or not she'd stay in the suit. It doesn't make her less likely to drop the suit.
I should have elaborated more on that...as someone with a larger, more communal-care minded family--Byrne established Heather did not want kids because of the large family she ran away from--that Heather would be more inclined to trust leaving her baby in the care of others than a husband from a small family would be.


I had a very different impression: that the relationship wasn't pursued because Heather was underage and Mac would be doing hard time for it. That much was pretty much stated overtly in the stories that explored their early days. As a result, Heather's family was far from pleased that she married Mac.
I disagree there because Heather was out of school and working as an administrative assistant when she met Mac. Maybe an age difference can provide some of the motivation for Heathers' parent's disapproval, but not for Mac's inattention to Heather, unless Canadian consent laws are vastly different from most laws in the States, which gives age of concent for sex at 16. This may be faulty memory, but I thought Heather was 19 when she met Mac.


I've never seen Mac as aloof and inattentive: if anything the man is very emotionally involved in what transpires around him, and extremely idealistic. As a parental figure, I see him as being more permissive; more likely to discuss and use logic to sway someone than to simply lay down the law and say "it's my way or the highway". In a leadership role he may be more direct, but my parental impression of him is different.
We've seen less of Mac overall due to his death, so the character is more open to interpretation. I agree with "involved" but not "emotionally involved." He seemed to me to play things close to the vest. A couple examples: >>Body language with Heather was often more aloof, she reaching out to him, often while he was just concentrating on something else. >>He knew that the twins' energies could interfere with his battlesuit, but hadn't expected them to know it...which means he never addressed this potential vulnerability with them.


And there's the trap of the paradigm; defining national identity by stereotyped gender roles innately leads to a sexist bias in character definition. Though I do see your point. :)
I just see Heather in the suit with more subtle symbolism for Canada than Mac possesses. I would not want to see either of them, or any other character for that matter...brcome a true and fully accurate literary symbol for Canada...that would only lead to trite, boring stories that become writers' soapboxes.


But when it comes to Alpha, being a proud, flag-waving Canadian, I don't necessarily want to see my nation, or the team that represents them, as being necessarily defined in contrasting definition with the USA.
We're talking Alpha Flight...a comic about Canadian adventurers published by an American company. I would also not want to see that, but elements will always be unavoidable unless Marvel opens editorial offices in Canada and staffs them with Canadians.


To that end, I'd love to see the team, in and of itself, representative of the nation -- without the need to define the nation in the light of the view of others. Let the definition of self come from the self. Let others perceive it as they may.
Byrne did that with his characters. No subsequent writer managed it, unless you want to count Lobdell's creation of Puck 2 and her incessant, annoying and BADly stereotyping "eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh," after every word baloon as something Canadian. I don't see it that way, and doubt you do either.


Did he? I was under the impression that the issues were linear, with the first appearing after Alpha's last appearance in another title... revelations of Sas and Aurora's relationship having come from that direction.
The Machine Man appearance was published simultaneously as Uncanny 139/140. Other appearances were limited, and Byrne used AF #1 to tie together any loose continuity. Sasquatch also appeared in Hulk Annual 8 prior to AF1, and possibly other Hulk appearances as well, although in my chronology I have placed those between #1 and 2 by reason that #1's story was set prior to publication schedule and continuity wise comes before the 2-in-1 appearance. The Hulk amnesty issues may also have been prior to AF#1, and in those, Mac was also non-combatant, doing little more than being a sign of Canada.


No, but folklore and myth does recognize the archetype of the hero who utilizes wit, courage, and direct action to succeed:
this is where Prometheus fits in...perfectly. His was the fist mythological example that came to mind that bridged the magical/scientific knowledge gain/advance. There is a difference between the witty corageous action hero and the science hero. Archetypicacal heroes garner a subconscious recognition across cultures while scientific heroes as you define them in examples of Iron Man and Reed Richards are more of a modern convention and would not be recognized as a "type" by people without necessary literary background.


Whereas the other characters fill other roles: Judd may have great wit and knowledge, but he depends upon physical prowess and combat skill for his triumphs -- he's a warrior.
as an archtype, Puck is more of a universally recognizable helper, particularly due to his stature.

Sas fills the human fascination with superhuman might,
and as a true archtype of the beast/animal helper

the twins with flight and beauty,
with modern day preoccupation of "personal" lives...lol. More seriously, their ears made them elves, also archetypes of helpers, often mischievous, and often helpful with a edge of mystery, refusal to answer questions and general attitude.

Snowbird the land and demi-divinity,
Snowbird is archetype in co many ways, she is almost a stereotype of them! One human parent, one goddess, same as Norse Thor and seemingly half the Greek.Roman Pantheon

Marrina with aquatic myth, etc.
Bridging the sea in general with water archtypes of transmutability, as Byrne wrote her. Unfortunately, Simonson decided she worked better as sea horror archtype and offed her...then almost immediately ditched Namor as an Avengers, thus depriving us of seeing even the effect of her death on anyone close to her.

I think when you tabulate how Byrne modeled the team after universal archtypes, their immediate appeal is not surprising. Add in the effort he put into the characters to make them so much more than the one dimensional images created to survive a knock-down with the X-Men, and the continuing respect that his run on AF garners in spite of himself--is also not surprising. I personally believe, gicven his personality, that Byrne discounts Alpha because he likes having people tell him what great work he did on them. Alpha is his best.


In a fictional world where characters of archetypical portrayal and mythic ability roam, the human hero that leads them (much like Jason and the Argonauts) must him or herself be a Marvel. And Mac's a Marvel because of his mind...which I interpret as more reason to keep that mind (seeing the character is alive again anyway) in the lab where his mind is the focus of his character, and have Heather as team leader in the suit created by her husband.


(You do realize that the geek police are coming for us, even as I type this message, don't you?) ;)
We'll distract them with donuts.


Instead of Mary Shelley's pseudo-science inbred with occultism and gone horribly awry in the form of a superhuman monster,
The monster was horrific in the novel Frankenstein...but the scientist was the true monster in human terms, because he refused to accommodate his creation's basic need for LOVE. The Monster killed as means of forcing his creator to make him a mate.

In the fantasy of a super-heroic world, where direct action from iconic heroes representing the fascinations of humanity is a cornerstone of the genre's appeal, it is a natural extension that the science hero take their place as a modern link amongst ancient symbols. Whether from gamma bombs, irradiated spiders, or rockets launched from other planets, most superheroes have at least a touch of science-hero in their origin. They are key to the genre. Disregarding their potency reduces some of the genre's heart.[/quote]
Which emphasizes Guardian's role as the common man turned hero. He turned out to be a married man who had struggled with his jobs. But he is less common man to a generalized comic book audience because he won a smart and beutiful wife with no effort of his own, and possesses scientific genious beyond the readership.
Steve Rogers only had determination and courage, enough to allow him to become Captain America through the scientific endeavor of others. That's why I don't see it as any loss of iconic imagery to have Heather in the suit. She possessed determination and courage, but her gift was technology of the 1970's & 80's than the 1940's. And her first reaction after donning the suit was also in line with Steve Roger's attitudes: Heather sought training. Steve Rogers had been denied enlistment to the military, just as Puck denied Heather's training. As national iconic heroes, did Heather Hudson deserve any less chance to become a hero as Steve Rogers? I think her holding the flight together following Mac's death and her active, non powered on-the-front-lines against the likes of Omega Flight, the Hulk, and Scramble afford her MORE of a chance than anything Steve Rogers did to earn his role.

For all this wonderful exchange of ideas, I am MORE convinced that the suit and title of Guardian should go to Heather, and not just because Mac should have stayed dead anyway.

Heather's development as Guardian took place over years and a multitude of writers. Mac's resurrections all strike me as gross CHANGE, not development, and specifically a desire to blindly change things back to the exact original team. Guardian was dead (mostly) for 118 issues, and every resurrection (except the Delphine Courtney scam) was a forced and rather meaningless play at this.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I had a very different impression: that the relationship wasn't pursued because Heather was underage and Mac would be doing hard time for it. That much was pretty much stated overtly in the stories that explored their early days. As a result, Heather's family was far from pleased that she married Mac.
I disagree there because Heather was out of school and working as an administrative assistant when she met Mac. Maybe an age difference can provide some of the motivation for Heathers' parent's disapproval, but not for Mac's inattention to Heather, unless Canadian consent laws are vastly different from most laws in the States, which gives age of concent for sex at 16. This may be faulty memory, but I thought Heather was 19 when she met Mac.

Heather was actually 17, Jeff. :D

Dana

[HappyCanuck]

Actually, one of the key reasons that the MacNeils didn't like Mac was a) they were devout Catholics, whereas Mac was a scientist as well as an Atheist, and b) Mac's job required him to be away alot, as well as put him in dangerous situations - meaning he'd risk alienating himself from his wife, as well as eventually killing himself (which was a valid reason apparently.) All these factors have been meantioned ON PANEL, so feel free to look 'em up. As far as I know, her age was never an issue, especially since 1965, the average age of sexual consent is 16 (as long as the older parter is under 24; add a year for every year until majority which - nationally- is 18.)

[cmdrkoenig67]

Actually, one of the key reasons that the MacNeils didn't like Mac was a) they were devout Catholics, whereas Mac was a scientist as well as an Atheist, and b) Mac's job required him to be away alot, as well as put him in dangerous situations - meaning he'd risk alienating himself from his wife, as well as eventually killing himself (which was a valid reason apparently.) All these factors have been meantioned ON PANEL, so feel free to look 'em up. As far as I know, her age was never an issue, especially since 1965, the average age of sexual consent is 16 (as long as the older parter is under 24; add a year for every year until majority which - nationally- is 18.)

Her age WAS and issue...for Mac(at least it was at frst)...he was quite freaked out when she suggested they get married.

Dana

[HappyCanuck]

will have to take your word for it. As I said, as far as I knew, age was never an issue. As for Mac's shock, I fig'd that more to be a case of he never thought of the idea of him getting married...

[Northcott]

Yeah, Allan, the age issue was a big deal for them. In the little origin story when they showed how Mac and Heather became involved with Department H, Mac's openly jittery when Heather drops by with groceries. He makes a crack about possibly being arrested just for having her in his apartment.

Now think of it from the POV of an old-school Catholic family: you've got a teenage daughter just finishing highschool, and she's dating some guy ten years her senior. I don't care how many degrees he has, or what kind of boy-wonder genius the fruit-loop is, that's some guy pushing 30 that's hanging around with my not-yet-a-legal-adult daughter.

I'm surprised Heather's old man didn't shoot Mac. :)


There's got to be something I perceive as intended as personal from the other person, or such a long term pattern of idiocy or ignorance that I feel it NEEDS to be pointed out

[dramatic aside]My disguise has been successful...[/dramatic aside]


I think this reinforces the true archetypes of a lot of the Lee/Kirby/Dikto creations...these elements were SO universal, the creator was not fully aware he was using them. And Lee'ss memory about things was always "sketchy" by his own account, although -I- think much of that was due to Lee's downplaying of the contributions of Dikto and Kirby and others to the initial creations.

Preachin' to the choir, brother! ;) I just thought it was an amusing anecdote. I've a sneaking suspicion that such a realization might not have been entirely beyond Kirby, who was slighted for years. What was done to his career is a bloody travesty, and one of the great shames of the industry. Lee maintained for decades that he wrote and Kirby drew, with minimal story input -- yet after Kirby finally got some of his pages back from Marvel (many were destroyed) there was concrete proof of his side of the story. There were many pages where kirby wrote in the margins what was happening, creating plots and direction for Lee to do no more than script.


For archetypes in the truest sense, there are more male archetypes than female.

But is such an application innately limiting in and of itself? Archetypes as taught in many literature courses are so rooted in classical/western thought that they chain themselves. Must an archetype necessarily be possessed of gender bias? Snowbird fits many archetypical images, as you point out, but her gender ceases to be a limiting role until it is used in that specific capacity.

Wonder Woman may fit the "warrior woman" archetype... but would it not be a cleaner representation to simply say "the warrior archetype"? There's often talk of sun-god and moon-goddess archetypes; key representations of masculinity and femininity: but in Inuit legend the sun is a woman and the moon a man (and an incestuous rapist at that).

I think there's great value in exploring the application of archetypes when removed from gender preconceptions.


I should have elaborated more on that...as someone with a larger, more communal-care minded family--Byrne established Heather did not want kids because of the large family she ran away from--that Heather would be more inclined to trust leaving her baby in the care of others than a husband from a small family would be.

On the flipside, she may be less so: her experience is that family takes care of family. Would she be comfortable leaving a child in the hands of strangers (presuming both parents working)?


I disagree there because Heather was out of school and working as an administrative assistant when she met Mac. Maybe an age difference can provide some of the motivation for Heathers' parent's disapproval, but not for Mac's inattention to Heather, unless Canadian consent laws are vastly different from most laws in the States, which gives age of concent for sex at 16. This may be faulty memory, but I thought Heather was 19 when she met Mac.

She was either at the tail-end of highschool, or just graduated. That always made the whole thing a little creepy to me, truth be told. :shock: But then I come from a very old-fashioned Irish Catholic family (though having left the church myself). Probably a large part of why Heather and Mac quickly became the focus of my own scribblings when I started to toss around story ideas: I feel most comfortable inside the heads of those two characters.


We've seen less of Mac overall due to his death, so the character is more open to interpretation. I agree with "involved" but not "emotionally involved." He seemed to me to play things close to the vest. A couple examples: >>Body language with Heather was often more aloof, she reaching out to him, often while he was just concentrating on something else. >>He knew that the twins' energies could interfere with his battlesuit, but hadn't expected them to know it...which means he never addressed this potential vulnerability with them.

Interesting take. Very keen observations. I interpret the same signs a little differently; perceiving someone lost in thought rather than detached. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions seemed to display an individual of vision and compassion... and not very good at emotional detachment, in spite of his logical mind. ("Sell my suit to the military? We'll just see about that!" ... "Awww, crap. I'm probably gonna do time for this!")


We're talking Alpha Flight...a comic about Canadian adventurers published by an American company. I would also not want to see that, but elements will always be unavoidable unless Marvel opens editorial offices in Canada and staffs them with Canadians.

Or at least until it puts Canadians on the creative team. Or at the very least gets a creative team who actually knows about Canada. (Someday, dammit!)


Byrne did that with his characters. No subsequent writer managed it, unless you want to count Lobdell's creation of Puck 2 and her incessant, annoying and BADly stereotyping "eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh," after every word baloon as something Canadian. I don't see it that way, and doubt you do either.

Like I said above. :? Byrne was raised in Canada; though my nation's currently on his ****-list of things and people he likes to trash-talk, he once at least had enough of an understanding to write and illustrate the stories with a solid feel to them. As for the "eh" phenomenon... don't get me started. ;)


this is where Prometheus fits in...perfectly. His was the fist mythological example that came to mind that bridged the magical/scientific knowledge gain/advance. There is a difference between the witty corageous action hero and the science hero. Archetypicacal heroes garner a subconscious recognition across cultures while scientific heroes as you define them in examples of Iron Man and Reed Richards are more of a modern convention and would not be recognized as a "type" by people without necessary literary background.

I disagree on that. I think they'd be recognized, just not as the modern archetype. When the element of science is removed, the fantastic then provides default flavour for their supernatural abilities. In both cases great wit remains key to the characters, but Reed would default to (imo) more of a wizardly/explorer type, while Marvel has always played up Stark's knight/lord of the manor leanings.

The science hero isn't a new archetype made from whole cloth, it's merely an evolution from older ones that fits our modern day and age. That doesn't make them any less relevant.


as an archtype, Puck is more of a universally recognizable helper, particularly due to his stature.

Whereas I don't see his size as a limiting factor in his classification.


with modern day preoccupation of "personal" lives...lol.

:lol:


I think when you tabulate how Byrne modeled the team after universal archtypes, their immediate appeal is not surprising. Add in the effort he put into the characters to make them so much more than the one dimensional images created to survive a knock-down with the X-Men, and the continuing respect that his run on AF garners in spite of himself--is also not surprising. I personally believe, gicven his personality, that Byrne discounts Alpha because he likes having people tell him what great work he did on them. Alpha is his best.

I completely agree.


And Mac's a Marvel because of his mind...which I interpret as more reason to keep that mind (seeing the character is alive again anyway) in the lab where his mind is the focus of his character, and have Heather as team leader in the suit created by her husband.

But, once again, the heart of the genre is the active application of ability. Iron Man fails as a concept when he gets someone else to don the suit. Spider-Man's mantra has become "with great power comes great responsibility" -- and while it may be argued that realistically the best application for Mac's remarkable power is in the lab -- again that goes against the very heart of the genre.

The same argument can be made for every genius hero in the Marvel Universe. Reed Richards, Peter Parker, Hank Pym, Tony Stark: not a single one of them should be leaping around in spandex kicking the crap out of a host of deranged baddies ranging from Galactus to Stilt-Man (he slays me). It makes absolutely no sense for any of them to function the way they do: they should all be sitting in a lab somewhere creating utopia. They certainly have the ability.

According to Parker's mantra, he should have marketed those web-shooters, made a mountain of money to support his dear old aunt, and permanently solved endless problems in construction, rescue operations, law enforcement, etc. Why doesn't he? 'Cause he's a super-hero, and that's part of his shtick.

Sure, it's more logical for Mac to putter around a lab and not get himself blown up. It's also a hell of a lot more logical to take a professional, highly-trained soldier and dump them in the suit than an ex-secretary with no formal technological or combat training. Logic doesn't enter into the equation, beyond what's required to sustain the thin suspension of disbelief that makes the genre work.

The power is the hero, and the hero the power.


Steve Rogers only had determination and courage, enough to allow him to become Captain America through the scientific endeavor of others. That's why I don't see it as any loss of iconic imagery to have Heather in the suit.

Ah, but you miss the link of transformation and unique presence: the science that transformed Rogers may have belonged to others, but Erskine dies immediately after, and the abilities are then innate to Rogers. Moreover, they are a direct physical expression of his mentality. The same is seen in every member of the Fantastic Four, the core/classic members of the Avengers, and the X-Men (at least with early mutants; power often reflected personality, sometimes ironically).

Heather is not transformed. Heather is not capable of engineering her own transformation. As a literary device, she is the weak link in terms of the elements that allow the genre to work.


As national iconic heroes, did Heather Hudson deserve any less chance to become a hero as Steve Rogers?

Of course not. Nor did she undergo transformation; the gap between common man and super-hero. She's just someone with guts and a suit. Heather represents the break in suspension of disbelief. When a Marvel who crafts a technological miracle uses that miracle to do epic deeds, it is clear that this is their break with the common man/woman: this is what makes them a super-hero.

When someone who has no remarkable trait about them bears that same technology successfully and in the long-term, the question then automatically becomes: Why? Why is now unique, if you don't need to be special to use it? Why not the military or the police? Why not even by someone else? Is a gutsy ex-secretary the best person to wield such power? Or would a highly-trained cop or soldier be the better choice?

As a literary figure, Heather breaks the genre. Cyborg parts, innate power, anything improves her role in this regard. Her brief stint with Asgardian power made more sense in terms of the genre than her donning the suit. Even the "normal" human Marvels are subject to years of intense specialized training and/or modification, often in tandem with some minor gizmo to give them a shtick of their own. She lacks even that distinction.


For all this wonderful exchange of ideas, I am MORE convinced that the suit and title of Guardian should go to Heather, and not just because Mac should have stayed dead anyway.

It was a mistake to kill him in the first place. ;) An early example of Byrne being cantankerous: he was originally slated to leave after issue 12. Imagine being the poor SOB that has to pick up a super-hero comic in that day and age when that's the most recent development.


Mac's resurrections all strike me as gross CHANGE, not development, and specifically a desire to blindly change things back to the exact original team.

You don't think the original death was gross change, rather than development? I think the desire to move back to the original team stems from innate recognition of the function of that team. The later incarnations lacked that distinction because of their breach of the conventions of the genre: they lost both iconic nature and became awkward in their function.

Trying to single out Heather's change as the sole good point in a long jag of bad writing ignores the surrounding elements: it can't be viewed in a vaccuum. The same errors of judgement that surrounded her circumstances also plagued her very nature as a super-hero: she was the super-hero that had nothing "super" about her. Brave and gutsy, yes -- but so are a billion other people. It was only someone else's effort that ever kept her special. There was no transformation.

Had she at least been given powers, she would have worked within the genre... but that would have played as too hackneyed a story. Instead a luke warm middle ground was chosen. It brought forth surprisingly beneficial consequences and she's gained a heck of a fan following, but ultimately the character stood out because she was placed among dismal failure; she remained simple whereas the continuity around her grew increasingly convoluted.

Among the super-heros of the Marvel Universe, we can break their concepts down easily enough:

Captain America: Super-soldier with unbreakable shield
Iron Man: self-made billionaire, hi-tech wonder
Thing: former soldier, daring pilot, scrapper, super-strong and tough
Human Torch: hot-head with potent flame powers
Professor Xavier: world's most powerful telepath


Then we look at the "classic" Alpha line-up:

Sasquatch: brilliant scientist turns himself into super-strong behemoth
Shaman: brilliant surgeon becomes powerful mystic and spiritual leader
Aurora and Northstar: mutant speedster twins
Snowbird: emotionally distant Demi-Goddess with a variety of powers
Puck: dwarf with a remarkable variety of skills, training, and experience
Marrina: denizen of the deeps with great speed and strength


Among such a list, it stands that one of the two will stand out as a Marvel:

Guardian: brilliant, patriotic scientist crafts battlesuit to lead the team he formed
Vindicator: has a battlesuit beyond her understanding, built by others


The common person doesn't understand the technology they use in everyday life. The common person also isn't a super-hero. In the genre, the transformation must occur, or the power be innate. Heather lacks both. Superheroes are written so that common peolpe can relate to them -- they are not in and of themselves common people (who may also be possessed of great courage and determination).

That, combined with her personality traits, make her ideal as a key player in the plot -- a strong, worthy, and appealing character -- but without resorting to the seemingly necessary (and remarkably, innately sexist) gender bias of a woman seeming weak unless she's blowing things up (like a man would). I think Byrne had the right of it in saying that he would have had Heather as the team leader, but not put her in the suit. I think that Heather's time in the suit is just one more extention of Mantlo's overall philosophy regarding the team, which was simply to tear it down and rebuild it -- seemingly without thought given to the nature of the characters involved. Heather is marvelous, but she's not a Marvel.

(Edit: Oh bloody hell. NOW it shows my posts. Bah!)

[kozzi24]

Maybe part of my appeal with Heather was that she broke some of the comics conventions. Mac was supposed to be the common man, but there is nothing common about his intelligence. Heather is a very common woman, and I see in her a plus that she is not a Marvel, not a detriment. I see her as example of what we call can become if we get up off our asses and give the effort needed to succeed.

I think part of the problem with the way Mantlo's run degenerated was in the fact that when Byrne and Mantlo switched titles, they took entire creative teams with them...including editors. This loss eliminated any direction that the "old" editor could have provided as to clues and story points.

Mantlo had some great work in his career. Alpha was not among the great stuff, and the bad things are glaringly bad, and what were at least passable stories and direction turned to evident disdain. I suspect he and Byrne had a falling out, so Mantlo showed his petty side by eliminating the Byrne team for his own. Judging by timing, I would further suspect that such a hypothetical falling out could have stemmed from the death of Snowbird.

Mantlo's weakest point in all his work was his means of characterization by giving the heroes something to ***** about. Somehow, he avoided most of this in Micronauts. I can read stories from Rom or Hulk and like them tremendously, but I cannot read runs of the book because the protagonists become these infuriating whiners, "oh, my lost humanity as a spacenight!" "Oh, my temper problems as the Hulk! Poor me!!" Then he applied that to a team book and they were ALL whining! But I'll end with any tirade on Mantlo as I always do, especially on this site, where he's bound to be ostracized for his work on Alpha: the man did some GREAT stuff in his time.

Byrne was very clear in keeping Mac from too much criticism of wrongdoing in the formation of the relationship with Heather by making her the instigator and pursuer of the relationship

Puck's height as a contribution to his archetype recognition was not intended as a detriment or limitation, but an aspect of the archetype recognition, in Western culture and others of elvish or dwarfish helpers in folklore. "The helpers should not overshadow the hero" line of thought.

I look at one of the recent Wolverine appearances of the team for some of the general awkwardness of the Mac/Heather condruum that exists because Mac has been brought back again. Heather was working with the team in what seemed to be a SHIELD uniform knowck-off. It just never seemed right. Her pregnancy was established in her next appearance-arc. I would agree more with the limitations of the suit not being Heather's creation if this was a Guardian solo book, but in a team conccept, her reliance on others in this area emphasizes the team inter-dependency to me.

And the more details that come to mind, the more I really think Byrne did have some intent to eventually put Heather in the suit. He was builing Heather up to be a costumed hero from absolutely nothing...no home, no husband, no family, no money, no job, I think if he had stayed to follow thru, we would have seen a thematic transformation into a hero, rather than a "cliched" comic book physical transformation.

I also think part of the reason that Alpha has been so convoluted is because there are so many diverse hands that contributed to it--more often than not convoluting it further and further. My approach, which I think is reasonably thought out, is to base everything on lowest common denomenators. Heather's development was constant, issue for issue, where Mac's returns have either been a writer's concept of a good idea (to which I did not always agree) or ending the series with the "recognizable" Alpha in place, including Mac Heather's development being more constant--I'm not sure there was more than a 1/2 dozen issues of the original run where she did not appear--I tend to rely and build ore heavuly from that, rather than using this Mac who was one of two Macs, neither of which were intended by the original writer (Seagle) to be the real one.

[Northcott]

Maybe part of my appeal with Heather was that she broke some of the comics conventions. Mac was supposed to be the common man, but there is nothing common about his intelligence. Heather is a very common woman, and I see in her a plus that she is not a Marvel, not a detriment. I see her as example of what we call can become if we get up off our asses and give the effort needed to succeed.

I can completely get behind that. It's not my personal taste in regards to preferences for the steroids n' spandex genre, but I understand and respect the concept.


Mantlo had some great work in his career. Alpha was not among the great stuff, and the bad things are glaringly bad, and what were at least passable stories and direction turned to evident disdain. I suspect he and Byrne had a falling out...

Really, there were too many jokes for me to make at this point. I had to stop for fear of overloading my caffine-deprived brain. :) Byrne not get along with someone? Perish the thought.

On a completely personal aside: If I had run into him when I were younger, and he had treated me like he's treated many others at conventions, etc, I'd have been crushed. I loved the man's work when I was younger. Tried to draw like him at one point, when I was a kid. Dreamed of following in his shoes, working on Superman... perhaps even meeting him someday.


Mantlo's weakest point in all his work was his means of characterization by giving the heroes something to b***h about. Somehow, he avoided most of this in Micronauts. I can read stories from Rom or Hulk and like them tremendously, but I cannot read runs of the book because the protagonists become these infuriating whiners, "oh, my lost humanity as a spacenight!" "Oh, my temper problems as the Hulk! Poor me!!" Then he applied that to a team book and they were ALL whining! But I'll end with any tirade on Mantlo as I always do, especially on this site, where he's bound to be ostracized for his work on Alpha: the man did some GREAT stuff in his time.

Agreed. I still have the Mantlo/Golden run of Micronauts. Heck, I still have my original copy of #11 -- it was while reading that particular issue that I decided that I wanted to be a comic artist when I grew up. Steve Miller's "Fly like an Eagle" was playing on the radio at the time. Freaky how clear that moment still is in my memory.


Puck's height as a contribution to his archetype recognition was not intended as a detriment or limitation, but an aspect of the archetype recognition, in Western culture and others of elvish or dwarfish helpers in folklore. "The helpers should not overshadow the hero" line of thought.

My bad. Miscommunication. I didn't mean to imply that you, specifically, were looking to slander short folk. :) I just see Puck in a (pardon the pun) bigger light. Short? Sure. Lives in pain? 24/7. The most dangerous Alphan? Very possibly. I don't see Judd as a leader; it's just not a part of his personality. But rather than a helper, I see him as more of a prime mover: a knight of the round table, rather than one of the fair-folk who help or hinder them. He's a warrior born. (entirely imo, of course)


I would agree more with the limitations of the suit not being Heather's creation if this was a Guardian solo book, but in a team conccept, her reliance on others in this area emphasizes the team inter-dependency to me.

I see that inter-dependancy in a different way; that each should be capable and on their own, but banded together make for a formidable (perhaps even unstoppable) force. While not every character's going to have the popularity to carry a solo book, conceptually they should be able to -- if they're to stand on par with iconic teams such as the JLA and Avengers. I tend to see Alpha in that very ambitious light.


And the more details that come to mind, the more I really think Byrne did have some intent to eventually put Heather in the suit. He was builing Heather up to be a costumed hero from absolutely nothing...no home, no husband, no family, no money, no job, I think if he had stayed to follow thru, we would have seen a thematic transformation into a hero, rather than a "cliched" comic book physical transformation.

Or a hobo. ;)


I also think part of the reason that Alpha has been so convoluted is because there are so many diverse hands that contributed to it--more often than not convoluting it further and further.

Oh Lord, yes. I completely concur. I think part of the reason why we saw so much more even-handed development and storytelling in the 70's was that the editorial staff were firmly entrenched in their jobs, and resisted change. A story had to be bloody good to sway them enough to allow permanent change in a character. These days everybody's trying to make their mark.

Each has it's ups and downs, but I'll admit freely to missing some of the more tight-fisted approach. A bit more consistancy would be nice. (You want to what? Kill WHO?!? Hell, no. Put down that bottle and back to work.)


I tend to rely and build ore heavuly from that, rather than using this Mac who was one of two Macs, neither of which were intended by the original writer (Seagle) to be the real one.

It's kinda funny... just the mention of that hurts my head and causes my eyes to glaze over in automatic defense.

[syvalois]

Ok, I just got around to read everything on that subject. Ouf! Guys? Do you have a life to write that much? Alarm! Alarm! very profond and intelligent discussion here that can help future writer to understand characters!!!

Ok, I won't comment on everything you guys said. to much... Anyway, I like Heather better in the suit. Why? Mac was dead when I started reading, Mac died to many times so I don't care about the character anymore. I don't like genious in a comic, they do deus ex machina thing, hate that. I don't care about his iconic nature, I think Heather fill that role very well. And, it's not because Mac his an engineer, that's makes him the best to used the suit, because some engineers are very bad to react in real time, fast and quick. They think too much. Some will say that Mac as provent he is capable of reacting quick enough. Ok, I agree, but it's maybe not what's he is the best at. And form my point of view, Mac is a 1 time wonder, made nothing else but the suit.

For heather, after reading Byrne, ok, I would have not put her in the suit, but I started with mantlo and she was in it. It's been done, so there is no coming back. I also think Ed that you don't give enough credit to Heather. If you look at archetype thing (which I beginning to hate, since I just want a good story with good characters) Cap. America is an asteroïd icon. Became better because of a drug. Yeah, right, very inspiring! So you can see in very different light all ICONIC characters. Even with Heather, people are asking why Batman or Robin, or the Punisher are listed as super-Heroes. Nothing knew there. Heather got the personality, that's all. But your fist post convinced me to put Heather out of the suit. I just don't see Mac as the leader anymore, been dead to much time to have the faith of everyone on the team.

So what do we have left? Put Heather like Gentry or Val Cooper did? Ok, I like that. Mac as the technology guy like Q in James Bond or like the tech guy in the tv serie Nikita. I liked the last one. The old member of the team that he recruted, could come he see him for advised. Now if I look at Byrne's Puck, I don't think he could be a great leader, but Seagle one could be. I like that aspect in Puck, I would like to see him as a leader, but I can understand if you don't. But not in the suit. I think it's discriminatory to Dwarf, but Puck do not fit in the suit. I just see MML in the suit and in the same way, we can get ride of the damn awful name. He could be renamed Gardian.

I just see Cap. America coming to MML and talk to him as the leader and you get an "hum-hum" form Puck saying, I'm the leader, he's just the mascot!"

there another long email, enjoy!

[Northcott]

If it were to go to the point where both Heather and Mac stepped away from the spandex game, and a new person were to wear the suit, I'd rather it be a character very different from Major Maple Leaf.

I'd much rather the character be more akin to Captain Canuck -- the character that MML was originally a mockery of. CC was created by Ron Leishman and Richard Comely (the latter still owns the character) back in the 70's, and enjoyed a rather popular indy comic run (with some marvelous art) in the early 80's. A second series was launched in the early 90's, and bombed, with a third recently having been launched... though the last seems to have disappeared off the radar.

What made Canuck refreshing was the straight-up, traditional heroic approach combined with the fact that he wasn't another aryan crammed into tights. Canuck was part native American, and bore the swarthy complexion of that side of his family.

That's what drew me to Alpha in the first place, truth be told. My cousin (who was down visiting from Labrador) and I were hunting around for comics. We were hooked on Captain Canuck, and that summer Alpha Flight came out. We saw Guardian/Vindicator's costume on the front, and snagged that issue as quick as our greedy little hands could reach. :)

[varo]

what if the canadian goverment breed (is that spelled right?) someone to don the guardian costume? almost like capt. america or even us agent (although i hate that character) to take over the mantle of leader of alpha flight and was trained by mac and heather who are now overseeing department h both in training and adminsitrative capacity's? now he (or she, just to avoid the gender biased non-sense again) does not need to be a "super soldier" per se, but someone with military experience and leadership quality's.

again, i think the costume is more iconic than the person in it.

[Northcott]

I don't know... the costume is certainly a strong part of it. A good costume design can really give a character a massive amount of "oomph": certain design elements need to be present, and all the Alphans have that in their appearance. Byrne was pumping on all cylinders when he designed them.

But that's often not enough. Kirby probably cranked out more iconic visual designs than any other creator, and some of the most successful. They've tried putting a new guy in Captain America's costume a number of times, and it's flunked every time. Switching up Spider-Man with a clone had mixed results. Swap-arounds with Thor have been disastrous.

There's this odd craving for the original bearer in comics. Just look at how DC's Golden Age heroes keep reappearing. I think that may be part of the problem with the red and white: it hasn't had long enough to really sit on a single user. Heather's worn it for the longest publication period, no doubt, but the ever-raging debate always bounces back, doesn't it? Mac's development time in the costume has been less, and for some of that he's been handled by really freakin' bad plot threads that have given him a host of personality defects -- and yet there's a number of people that harken back to the image of him in the suit.

It was too rushed a job, when all is said and done. I maintain that it was an error to kill him off in the first place: brilliant story, but detrimental to the overall health of the franchise.

[HappyCanuck]

Actually Ed, I'd argue that bringing Mac back was the detrimental part. If he acted like a good little cadavar and STAYED dead, it'd've been better.

[Northcott]

Actually Ed, I'd argue that bringing Mac back was the detrimental part. If he acted like a good little cadavar and STAYED dead, it'd've been better.

Nah, that was pretty much inevitable as soon as Alpha got their own book. Can you name three major heroes and/or headliners who have died and stayed dead?

The only two I could think of were Thunderbird and Ferro Lad -- and they finally brought the latter back a few years ago, whereas T-bird conveniently developed a younger brother who looked just like him. Even Jean Grey, arguably the greatest death the genre has ever seen, has returned. Killing Mac was only a stopgap. It's the nature of the beast.

The mistake was in killing him in the first place. For a limited series or What If issue it would have been brilliant... hell, it was still a fantastic story. But in terms of how the industry works, the conventions of the genre, and the nature of ongoing serial publication, it was a serious tactical error.

There's a damned good reason why killing off headliner super-heroes was a serious "no-no" for decades. :) Primary character death only really works in limited duration stories with a beginning, middle, and definitive end.

[kozzi24]

Nah, that was pretty much inevitable as soon as Alpha got their own book. Can you name three major heroes and/or headliners who have died and stayed dead?

Bucky
Gwen Stacy
Swordsman
Thunderstrike
Uncle Ben

I also think Mac should be on that list. The basic part of a major character's death is it's impact. When Mac died, his death still centered the series for another year and ran right into the Delphine Courtney plot. And even during Mantlo's run, he reamined a constant influence in the book as founder of the Flight. He was never forgotten.

I have to confess, I always found Mac kind of boring. A super-scientist (even if something of a one-hit wonder with the suit, as others have noted) and a man with great political vision in forming the Flight. Happuly married, field leader, some self doubt and aloofness from even those close to him, but there was never anything that was really special about him as character-person.

Byrne overdeveloped the Alpha to overcompensate for them being one-dimensional characters meant to survive a fight with the X-Men. The genre-breaking/expanding development of Mac was his marriage.

He was a nice guy, and that made him a bit boring. While I didn't think it was necessary at all or that it worked, I do understand why some subsequent writers tried giving Mac some depth by implying he had some sinister secrets.

[varo]

major heroes.

that list doesn't even come close to qualifying.

[kozzi24]

I kind of cringe at the thought of someone else in the suit, for clairty's sake.
Shaman then Talisman then Shaman as Talisman with Elizabeth powerless, then each independent again...
Walt/Sasquatch, Tanaraq Sasquatch, then Snowbird as a white Tanaraq, Walt/Box, then Wanda/Sasquatch, then back to Walt/Sasquatch, then V2's Bigfoot Sasquatch...
Bochs Box, Jaxxon Box, Walt Box, Bochs Box again, Jeffries Box...
Nemisis 1, Nemesis 2, Nemesis combined (more of a stretch here, as I think there was some bad writing involved)...
Weapon Alpha, Vindicator, Guardian, Heather suitless, Heather Vindicator, Heather Guardian, joined by a Mac Vindicator then Anti-guard, then Mac as Guardian & Heather as Vindicator, then Heather as volcanic Vindicator and "baby Mac", then add one Mac (while the writer intended Mac to be disguised as Gentry), Heather suitless, then Heather back as Volcanic Vindicator...
IT'S CONVOLUTED ENOUGH WITHOUT PUTTING SOMEONE ELSE IN THE SUIT!
And that;s without even counting the number of superflous characters that have been created in the Alpha titles. Statistics by number of indicivdually published issues, Alpha Flight is probably the per capita most crowded title of all time...and that's including all of the Avengers' Elements of Doom villains individually.
Even worse--and nearly my sole criticism of Furman--his later Omega Flight were horribly derivitive of other characters who had appeared in the title previously.

[kozzi24]

Ok, I just got around to read everything on that subject. Ouf! Guys? Do you have a life to write that much? Alarm! Alarm! very profond and intelligent discussion here that can help future writer to understand characters!!!


1. When the TV never goes on, free time becomes much more productive
2. Shame on those future writers for not reviewing the source material for themselves!

[kozzi24]

major heroes.

that list doesn't even come close to qualifying.

Thunderbird and Ferro Lad were?
Marvelwise, the only major character that the company tried to kill and keep dead was Tony Stark, and that was retroed out pretty quick, even though while the "Teen Tony" was being written, his presence as a second chance was played with rather well in the impact on other characters, especially Hawkeye.
Thunderstrike did headline Thor, then had his own book for a couple of years.
Swordsman, yeah, kinda lame effort there.
All three others were significant enough of characters that they are still mentioned and depicted and sometimes, for good or bad, still developed or tinkered with to this day.

[Northcott]

To the challenge of naming "three major heroes and/or headliners":



Bucky
Gwen Stacy
Swordsman
Thunderstrike
Uncle Ben


Bucky -- while only a sidekick he was a headliner. I'll give you that one.

The Swordsman, however, not only fails to qualify as a major hero or headliner, but he was also brought back to life some time ago. He was running around hale and hearty as of Busiek's post "Heroes Return" reboot of the Avengers.

But how do you qualify Gwen Stacy and Uncle Ben as major heroes and/or a headliner?

You've got me on Thunderstrike. I've no idea who that is. What book does he/she serve as the headline character in? I'd like to flatter myself and say that if they were one of the MU's major heroes I might know who they are, but...

... hold on a tick. Might've just clued in. Are you referring to the Thor knock-off? The mortal man who served as a stand-in for awhile?

[HappyCanuck]

Sooo, basically what you are saying, Jeff, is, instead of convoluting the story more (which, I'll admit, IS a bit convoluted) by throwing someone else in the suit, is either to put one of the two original users (I forget who's your prime candidate), or just tossing it in a cosmic dumpter somewhere, and streamline the title a bit more. Not saying I can't disagree.

I also can't disagree with what you've added. There are a LOT of characters in AF - and that's ignoring the villians and the plethora of connections they have through out the rest of the Marvel universe! Many of those characters are bad carbon copies of each other, but at the same time - especially the Core 10 (the six originals, Puck, Marrina, Heather and Talisman - all whom I count as 'original') - are so well-written and well-developed (as I said, esp by Byrne - which is ironic, since he thinks they are 'two-dimensional') it's hard to ADD to them without overbearing them. Mysterious characters (ie: Puck) are good in that sence, since you can add all you want (within reason) without seriously FUBARing the character (tho many have tried and this is where plausible retconning comes into play).

Okay, I HAD more, but for the life of me can't figure out where I was going with this, so without resorting to babbling, I'm gonna leave it here...

[kozzi24]

Thunderstrike the Thor knowck off, yes. His solo series was actually pretty decent storytelling!
However...the current Swordsman is NOT a resurrected original. That one's still dead. Busiek's Swordsman was paired with the character Magdalene...both were brought from an alternate earth at the same time the Vision was restored to his red appearance during Bob Harras' tenure as Avengers writer.

[Northcott]

Whoops! Looks like my answer came late. :) The message board is busy tonight.

We need lives.

[HappyCanuck]

Bucky -- while only a sidekick he was a headliner. I'll give you that one.

No qualms there.


The Swordsman, however, not only fails to qualify as a major hero or headliner, but he was also brought back to life some time ago. He was running around hale and hearty as of Busiek's post "Heroes Return" reboot of the Avengers.

ACtually that was Swordsman II... but I thought he went off into godknowswhere with Mantis... anywho, Swordsman I DID die.


You've got me on Thunderstrike. I've no idea who that is. What book does he/she serve as the headline character in? I'd like to flatter myself and say that if they were one of the MU's major heroes I might know who they are, but...

Thunderstrike was Eric Masterson, the human who replaced Thor for a while, and, when Thor returned, was given a special mace that had similar properties as Mjilnor, as a gift, so that Eric could continue his work on Earth, since Thor was SUPPOSED to stay in Asgard and get back to doing the Crown Prince duties he'd been ignoring for the last century or so. Thunderstrike spun off a new title under the same name. However, shortly into his new carreer, T-Strike was killed. At one time, both Thor and Thunderstrike were Avengers.


... hold on a tick. Might've just clued in. Are you referring to the Thor knock-off? The mortal man who served as a stand-in for awhile?

... Didn't I just say that? Man, I gotta learn to READ THE POSTS BEFORE ANSWERING... oi...

[Northcott]

Thunderstrike the Thor knowck off, yes. His solo series was actually pretty decent storytelling!
However...the current Swordsman is NOT a resurrected original. That one's still dead. Busiek's Swordsman was paired with the character Magdalene...both were brought from an alternate earth at the same time the Vision was restored to his red appearance during Bob Harras' tenure as Avengers writer.

Oh, c'mon! :) If they'd chosen to bring Mac back by dragging an alternate earth version over, you know you'd still count it as a ressurection.

[HappyCanuck]

WILL YOU GUYS POST MORE SLOWLY!! It's hard to keep up! I've repeated three times what was not posted while I was updating!

(NOTE: this is all said with a laugh in my voice.)

[Northcott]

Before I forget again...

About Thunderstrike. He was a headliner, I've got to give him that, but he wasn't a major hero. He was a replacement -- a carbon copy. A fill-in. As good as the stories and/or characterization may have been, he falls squarely into the "expendable" category, just like every Captain America who wasn't Steve Rogers, and every Superman that wasn't Clark Kent.

Create a "fill-in" character for a retired big gun, and that character's just begging to be retired in a nasty way.

[kozzi24]

I don't remember the details, but there were major differences in the histories of the two Swordsmen. The story was an alternate version of Black Knight going through the multiverse trying to kill every alternate version of Sersi or something. Decent story overall, in my opinion a very underrated run of Avengers

[cmdrkoenig67]

I kind of cringe at the thought of someone else in the suit, for clairty's sake.
IT'S CONVOLUTED ENOUGH WITHOUT PUTTING SOMEONE ELSE IN THE SUIT!

You know it, brother.


Alpha Flight is probably the per capita most crowded title of all time.

Time to kill some characters...Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!! :twisted:

Dana :D

[Mokole]

Or give them new roles outside of AF. "Persuasion and the Omegans". When Paranormals get fed up, Persuasion picks them up.

[cmdrkoenig67]

How is Heather any different than say...White Tiger(the new one)? Take the Jade Tiger amulet away and they are powerless. How about Blue shield, The Arabian Knight, Darkhawk or Frank Drake(without "Linda").

Then there's the Falcon, Quasar(I doubt he'd know how to repair those gauntlets, if they ever malfunctioned), Green Lantern and remember what used to happen to Thor if his hammer was taken away for too long?

If you get right down to it....how powerful would Shaman be without his medicine bag? Could he fix it, if it too malfunctioned?

Dana

[Northcott]

How is Heather any different than say...White Tiger(the new one)? Take the Jade Tiger amulet away and they are powerless. How about Blue shield, The Arabian Knight, Darkhawk or Frank Drake(without "Linda").

There's a reason why every character you've mentioned above has failed to qualify as a "heavy hitter". The best any of them have had was a brief spurt where they were new and shiny and so benefitted from the grace period accorded to such characters.

Dodge the conventions of the genre, pay the price.


Then there's the Falcon, Quasar(I doubt he'd know how to repair those gauntlets, if they ever malfunctioned), Green Lantern and remember what used to happen to Thor if his hammer was taken away for too long?

Falcon learned how to care for his own tech a long time ago, iirc. But, again, with the exception of Green Lantern, each character you mention here suffers the same problem. Ever notice how Falcon and Quasar never last too long in any Marvel title they're written into? The exception being Falcon's run in the 70's when he was Captain America's sidekick.

The issues with GL were dealt with earlier in this thread: there are elements of the character beyond the ring that create the appeal. There's a reason why many fans clamour for the return of Hal Jordan. Even with that exception, the ring was granted fictional properties so that it acted as an extension of the character: it couldn't be destroyed, and because it was controlled by thought GL eventually figured out that he could trigger it even if it was removed from his hand. It's only limitations were duration of power and yellow. The ring was a tool, but did not define the character's limits: rather his innate attributes defined the limits of what he could accomplish with the tool.

Thor's power remained innate. That example doesn't apply here. The cane/hammer shtick was throw in as a limitation to create dramatic tension at appropriate moments: it wasn't the source of his power, it was the source of his weakness. His power was innate, and key to his nature.


If you get right down to it....how powerful would Shaman be without his medicine bag? Could he fix it, if it too malfunctioned?

Yep, he can. :) Again, the special properties lay within the character, not the tool. Willpower, training, vision, vast lore, the ability to see beyond the physical world, these are required to use the medicine bag. We know full well that not just anyone can get their hands on it and be a superhero. Shaman has many special properties, innate to the character, beyond the tool he uses.

The suit isn't a tool for Heather, it's a crutch. It does not rely upon any special, innate trait that she possesses. Without it she does not function in the superheroic mould: there is nothing special (epic or legendary) about her. There is nothing she does that could not be equalled or surpassed by another normal human better trained for the role.

[cmdrkoenig67]

The issues with GL were dealt with earlier in this thread: there are elements of the character beyond the ring that create the appeal. There's a reason why many fans clamour for the return of Hal Jordan. Even with that exception, the ring was granted fictional properties so that it acted as an extension of the character: it couldn't be destroyed, and because it was controlled by thought GL eventually figured out that he could trigger it even if it was removed from his hand. It's only limitations were duration of power and yellow. The ring was a tool, but did not define the character's limits: rather his innate attributes defined the limits of what he could accomplish with the tool.

I don't know about you, Ed....but I thought Heather had a lot to offer, even before the suit(elements of the character beyond the suit that create the appeal) to paraphrase what you said.


The suit isn't a tool for Heather, it's a crutch. It does not rely upon any special, innate trait that she possesses. Without it she does not function in the superheroic mould: there is nothing special (epic or legendary) about her. There is nothing she does that could not be equalled or surpassed by another normal human better trained for the role.

So Falcon's wings aren't a crutch?...Shaman's pouch? Could he use magic without it's presense? I think your just short-changing her....we're talking about comics here...she could be written as having learned much more about the suit...with the suit she's accomplished some really great things. Without the suit, Mac would just be another comic book scientist...he would not be a icon or legendary hero....period.

Dana

[Northcott]

I don't know about you, Ed....but I thought Heather had a lot to offer, even before the suit(elements of the character beyond the suit that create the appeal) to paraphrase what you said.

Many characters do. Not all characters, however, become super-heroes. Once again, the point is not whether or not a character is interesting or well-written: it's whether or not they bear within them some innate ability that bridges the gap from commonality to legendary. Heather lacks that.


So Falcon's wings aren't a crutch?...

My apologies if I come across as more blunt or acerbic than I intend to be here, but I'm rather at a loss for how to explain this more clearly.

My contention is that characters that fail to meet certain requirements of the genre will often, if not always, fail to achieve the iconic status needed to attain the level of the greatest characters of the genre. A team comprised of such creations will also fail to attain the level of the major players: JLA, Avengers, etc.

I clearly pointed out the Falcon's role as a character that has failed to achieve that level, his longest run being as a sidekick.


Shaman's pouch? Could he use magic without it's presense?

We've had that much confirmed. The only question remains how much he can access without the pouch, and/or how easily.


I think your just short-changing her....we're talking about comics here...she could be written as having learned much more about the suit...with the suit she's accomplished some really great things. Without the suit, Mac would just be another comic book scientist...he would not be a icon or legendary hero....period.

And, again, that is the point. Heather did not create the suit. She does not have the capacity to create the suit. She's an interesting, strong, and compelling character... but she is not a marvel. Not a super-hero in a manner that can take advantage of the genre.

You're right: without the suit, Mac wouldn't be an icon or a legendary hero. If Captain America decided to become a security guard in Hoboken, New Jersey, we'd never have heard of him. All his phenomenal gifts would still be in place, but he'd be a non-entity.

It's not merely a question of what the character can do, but what they do with it. But the fact remains, they both must have and must do to achieve that status. The point was previously made: what makes Mac an iconic figure in the superhero genre is not merely his phenomenal ability, but the fact that he is active in using it. Disregarding that element of the character is nothing short of discarding the character.

[HappyCanuck]

I don't agree with you Ed. In my eyes, Heather's more of a 'marvel' than most anyone out there. What makes her a 'marvel' is that she took a piece of technology she didn't understand, learned how to use it, and utilised it to its/her full extent, not because she wanted glory, but because she felt she NEEDED to. THAT's what makes her a Marvel: because she's a normal human, with no skills or extraordinary talents, but the drive to do what needs to be done. Yes, the suit is a crutch in a way - I prefer to think of it as a means to an end: she knew she was nothing special so found something that would give her that edge. What's more, Heather has no penitential need to be the hero: people like Falcon, Luke Cage and Wonder Man, they are in the gig because they f****d up when they were younger and went into the hero business to atone for past sins. Heather became one for more altruistic reasons: because someone needed to fill in the shoes of her then-late husband, and she was the only one available. That's also why, unlike Falcon she amounted as more than just a 'sidekick' character, and as a formidable combattant - and ally. Which is more impressive: a person with superhuman abilities doing right because they can, or a regular joe with no reason to risk their butt, going out to do right because they have the will and drive to make the world a better place? This is the same reason why the cops, firefighters and military personelle, in my eyes, should be given more accolades than they recieve - and many comic writers agree with me by way of the characters they write - because they CHOSE to have the crappy end of the stick for purely altruistic reasons: not because they CAN, but because they know that if they don't, who else will?
.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Powers, special skills or intellectual genius aside...To me, if we're talking icons...it's the suit(and I'm not talking about the technological part of it)...that makes the Icon. The Canadian flag suit is what makes Heather or Mac(and even ...ick...major mapleleaf) icons(which they may not even truley be...yet).

Cap's suit and shield make him an icon....without them, he's not really Captain America...he's a highly trained acrobatic, regular guy.

They are symbols of something. I don't consider any of the other Alphans to be icons....or even any of the other Avengers. Some of them may be very recognizable, but they are in no way...icons.

Batman and Superman may be icons, but that has only come from the sheer amount of exposure they've had over the many years they've been around... It's the same with Spidey. It isn't their powers, so much as what they stand for(and their very images, which play the biggest part) that makes them icons. I think Women just aren't really ever viewed in the same way(which is very sad)...except Wonder Woman.

Perhaps I'm viewing things too simply..but that's how I view comics(my sig speaks for me)....I just think Heather is really cool. I've always found Mac horribly boring...I can't get past the fact he's been really, really badly written since Byrne left the book(but even under Byrne's pen...he was a bit of a bore).

Dana

[Northcott]

I don't agree with you Ed.

That's cool. :) I didn't expect that everybody would... or in the case of the Alpha fan board, that many would. :)


In my eyes, Heather's more of a 'marvel' than most anyone out there.

Again, I'll draw the seperating line: a character does not need to be a superhero to be the root of good stories. They do not need powers or remarkable abilities to be a strong, compelling character.

They do, however, require as much to be superheroes in terms of the conventions of the genre that make for the longest-lasting and most iconically potent characters. My premise isn't that Heather is a bad character, but rather as a superhero that she is (in a sense of literary notions) weaker than other characters.

That's not to say that genre staples can't be ignored or altered, but in doing so there's a great risk run that the suspension of disbelief that allows the genre to function begins to unravel. As a character, Heather is an excellent tool. She does, however, make for a poor super-hero figure in that she's a jumping-off point for the unravelling of suspension of disbelief.


What makes her a 'marvel' is that she took a piece of technology she didn't understand, learned how to use it, and utilised it to its/her full extent, not because she wanted glory, but because she felt she NEEDED to.

That doesn't make her a Marvel anymore than any fireman, cop, or soldier. Fantastic people, potentially compelling character concepts, but not super-heroes.

That she felt the need to use power to a better end makes her no better or worse than any one of several dozen other characters out there. That doesn't qualify as a unique or remarkable ability.


What's more, Heather has no penitential need to be the hero: people like Falcon, Luke Cage and Wonder Man, they are in the gig because they f****d up when they were younger and went into the hero business to atone for past sins.

This is a new element to the debate, and tangental. The need for redemption does not figure into this equation -- though I'd be happy to tackle it in another thread, if you want. :) My personal take on it is that the need for redemption is merely another literary device, and does not serve to either minimialize or aggrandize a character concept, save to provide another layer of motivation.

Both the altruist and the seeker of redemption have remarkably noble qualities that allow them to function very well as heroic figures.


Which is more impressive: a person with superhuman abilities doing right because they can, or a regular joe with no reason to risk their butt, going out to do right because they have the will and drive to make the world a better place? This is the same reason why the cops, firefighters and military personelle, in my eyes, should be given more accolades than they recieve - and many comic writers agree with me by way of the characters they write - because they CHOSE to have the crappy end of the stick for purely altruistic reasons: not because they CAN, but because they know that if they don't, who else will?
.

If we take that turn in logic to it's natural extension, then comics about cops, firefighters, and soldiers without super-powers would be viable super-hero comics.

When we look at sales figures, however, we see the exact opposite. Both DC and Marvel have attempted to focus on the "everyday heroes" of their respective continuities in the past. Each attempt has failed after relatively short periods of time. The longest-running one I can think of was "the 'Nam"; which was, iirc, set outside of Marvel continuity and had absolutely nothing to do with superheroes. That it was illustrated by a war vet, Mike Golden, helped immensely, I'd think.

What allows superheroes to function as a literary device is the notion that, in spite of their connection with the fictitious "common man", they are above and beyond in one or more ways. Once that is stripped from them, the natural extension is to explore the lack of the crossing line, which in turn leads to other conventions that lead to other genres.

This is neither a good nor a bad thing: it simply is. That transition, however, phases out the very type of story that allows the characters to hold relevance in their context. Striding down this path must, by needs, change the Marvel Universe... or else the stories fail to stand on their own legs. They ring hollow.

Dini's use of Silver Age conventions blended with modern sensibilities made his animated take on the DCU fly in popularity. In print media, we see a similar progress with the works of Busiek and Waid.

In terms of the tools that work most effectively for storytelling within the genre, Mac is a better choice for a superhero than Heather, in spite of the latter being (at the very least) an equally compelling character. If a version of Alpha that can sustain a presence similar to the Avengers or JLA is desired, then it's best to look at what makes those more successful fictions function, and match their quality. So long as that information is disregarded, the same failings will plague the IP again and again.

[Northcott]

Powers, special skills or intellectual genius aside...To me, if we're talking icons...it's the suit(and I'm not talking about the technological part of it)...that makes the Icon. The Canadian flag suit is what makes Heather or Mac(and even ...ick...major mapleleaf) icons(which they may not even truley be...yet).

The clothes make the man? ;) I'd say it's the opposite.

There have been a host of characters through the years that attempted to use national symbolism as a launching point, only to fail. A character that can't sustain interest has failed to become iconic. I'm referring to it in more than visual terms; iconic characters are those who have become, in and of themselves, templates -- or alternately, those who function so well in their role that they either function within an iconic role, or have the potential to become iconic.

All the original Alphans fall in the latter category, imo. The combination of visual design, personality, and simplicity of purpose (fast, strong, water-based, etc) gives them a core strength unmatched by most modern creations. They touch upon older design philosophies that have been ignored in the industry for years.


Batman and Superman may be icons, but that has only come from the sheer amount of exposure they've had over the many years they've been around... It's the same with Spidey. It isn't their powers, so much as what they stand for(and their very images, which play the biggest part) that makes them icons. I think Women just aren't really ever viewed in the same way(which is very sad)...except Wonder Woman.

It's what they stand for, their powers, and the elements of design with which they were created. They're part of the evolving language of literature, and helped forge the templates for the genre. A great deal about what makes stories of this nature tick can be learned from observing how the characters, and the types of tales surrounding them, have evolved over the years.


Perhaps I'm viewing things too simply..but that's how I view comics(my sig speaks for me)....I just think Heather is really cool. I've always found Mac horribly boring...I can't get past the fact he's been really, really badly written since Byrne left the book(but even under Byrne's pen...he was a bit of a bore).

The same is often said of Superman and Captain America; the two characters who are generally recognized as leading the JLA and the Avengers. I don't think that's entirely a coincidence. :)

[cmdrkoenig67]

I still like Heather better(at least she has a personality), so :P

Dana

[Northcott]

I still like Heather better(at least she has a personality), so :P

Dana

I can completely get behind that. :) (What the hell? There's no "thumb's up" emoticon!)

I think that Heather's a wonderful character. I'm just working this from a combination of academic and functional (i.e. How does this impact the story) angles. Personal preferences are a horse of an entirely different colour.

I read an interview with J.K. Rowling where she talked about killing off one of the characters in her Harry Potter novels. After writing the scene, she was utterly unconsolable; wept bitterly. She'd just offed one of the characters she liked the most.

Her husband, being the sensible sort that doesn't write books, simply asked, "Then why don't you change the story?" She answered that she couldn't, because the character had to die to bring about certain elements of progression in the story.

I don't want anybody getting the idea that I dislike the character of Heather... or that I'm even apathetic about the character. Quite the opposite. :)

[kozzi24]

I think much of what makes the "iconic" heroes is expossure. Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman...they have JLA, their own books, they had Superfriends, TV series. Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman...they're not as iconic.
Spidy, the FF, they've had chartoons every generations, and movies now. Exposure of Marvel's other icons such as Cap, Thor, Hulk and Iron Man and more recently Wolverine have also have other exposure, in and outside comics, and within comics multiple books.
Part of what has kept Hather from that iconic status, I think, is that every time an Alpha title is cancelled, there's a Mac, freshly resurrected, to make appearances in the broader Marvel Universe. Mac appeared in the Repo Man cartoon. I don't think Marvel's given her the chance to reach iconic stature.

Hether being the "common man" rebuilding herself from nothing is part of what makes her the greater hero. As Allan said, she stepped forward as a hero because she saw the need. Her ascension could have been written much worse,,,she did not even fall into the cliche of donning the suit to avenge her husband's death. Shor rose because there was a need, and she rose against the naysayers who didn't want her to take the suit, or even to train her. Some of the other characters scoffed. She listened to her own voice, her own judgment.

The death of Snowbird comes up as a black Mark against Heather...I've questioned why the other Alpha never took her to task for it myself. But the form of a demi goddess and great beast was being overrun by Pestilence. Heather made the decision to do WHATEVER necessary to stop the threat, and she willfully killed a teammate to do it.

I think Heather has the spirit to be an icon, in abundance, but she lacks the exposure. Mac has had more exposure despite almost ten years of Heather in the suit, but the character to me ALWAYS lacked the spirit.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Hey...John Byrne himself said that he found Mac to be the least interesting character in AF....it's one of the reasons he decided to have him die...along with it being for dramatic effect. I believe(I'm "mind-reading" a bit here) he also did it to bring Heather more into the spotlight(as leader)...since she was Byrne's favorite character.

Dana

[HappyCanuck]

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...

[syvalois]

Ed, I don't have your knowledge, this topic is going for ever because we don't find an argument that is as strong as yours. Yes iconic characters can be boring Captain America, Mac and Superman are (sorry, That's what I think) Like my comic history teacher said :"what made Tintin so populatr 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.

Now that can also be true to AF. Except that your logic for Heather don't work for me. Makes me think of a debate we had at school in my philosophy class: Is Mother theresa ego selffish, because it gives her pleasure to help people. Let just say that the class never got to a consensus. I think it's depens on what your logic is and in my case, it do not work for me. You like too much Mac, to see Heather as the leading role. If mac had never died we would not have knew her as much as we did. Her mourning was one of the greatest moment in the character and the serie, finally a death that as a great mourning. It also give Mac more dignity (he did not need more, he was already a great hero). Bur like me, who don't really like Mac, her mourning made you appreciate more Mac character and how he was important. Like your J.K. Rowling comment, the death of Mac was important in the development of the story.

You could argue that the team was already appart before that, because the Gov. had already stop funding the team when the serie began.

ok, I could bring other arguments, but it's time to do my homeworks.

can we agree the disagree Ed?

[Northcott]

I think much of what makes the "iconic" heroes is expossure. Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman...they have JLA, their own books, they had Superfriends, TV series. Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman...they're not as iconic.

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.

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.


Part of what has kept Hather from that iconic status, I think, is that every time an Alpha title is cancelled, there's a Mac, freshly resurrected, to make appearances in the broader Marvel Universe. Mac appeared in the Repo Man cartoon. I don't think Marvel's given her the chance to reach iconic stature.

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...


Hether being the "common man" rebuilding herself from nothing is part of what makes her the greater hero.

And again: a great hero isn't necessarily a good superhero. Cops, firefighters, and soldiers are among some of society's greatest heroes. At one point comics about them were quite popular -- but they were never mixed in with superheroes in the long term.


The death of Snowbird comes up as a black Mark against Heather...I've questioned why the other Alpha never took her to task for it myself. But the form of a demi goddess and great beast was being overrun by Pestilence. Heather made the decision to do WHATEVER necessary to stop the threat, and she willfully killed a teammate to do it.

Because heroes make the difficult choices and live with the consequences of choosing the lesser of two evils. It's a painful truth of life.

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.

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 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.


I think Heather has the spirit to be an icon, in abundance, but she lacks the exposure. Mac has had more exposure despite almost ten years of Heather in the suit, but the character to me ALWAYS lacked the spirit.

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.



Ed, I don't have your knowledge, this topic is going for ever because we don't find an argument that is as strong as yours.

My apologies if I'm seeming unusually cantankerous in this. :) Truth be told, I'm really enjoying this discussion. Granted, I haven't taken my writing seriously in a loooong time, but I still like to look at things through that lens now and again. And, hell, I'll admit it... I'd love to write and draw Alpha.

It's a pipe dream, but there it is. :) Strength of argument has nothing to do with this, for me. It's a wonderful opportunity to clarify ideas, reasoning, and stances, though. So if my pipe dream should ever come true, you'll know exactly what's going on in my head, and the reasoning behind the actions of the characters.

Or at least the ones I've prattled endlessly about.


Yes iconic characters can be boring Captain America, Mac and Superman are (sorry, That's what I think)

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.


Like my comic history teacher said :"what made Tintin so populatr 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.

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.

In cinema, movies like Braveheart are a perfect example of this. Few people spoke of William Wallace as their favourite character, but the number of people that raved about how funny/cool/brave the secondary characters were -- that's what drove the movie's popularity.

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 (brilliant casting on those). In Smallville, Clark's our hero, but it's Lex, Lana, Chloe, Pete, and a host of transitory characters that moved the story along.

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. :)

[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 :lol: ) 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="Legerd"]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.

:shock:

[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.

:shock:

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. :evil:

[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. :evil:

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 :D.)

[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...)

[Northcott]

Allan: Out of curiosity, did you watch any of the Dini Justice League cartoons? If so, what did you think of them?

I found them to be a fairly solid blend of Silver Age simplicity and tropes, mingled with a more modern sensibility that served to leaven the final product. I've seen plenty of opinions spinning in different directions, but given your preferences, I was left wondering what your thoughts on it were.

[HappyCanuck]

Not really sure what you mean by 'Dini Justice League' (never seen the word 'Dini' before, unless precursing 'Petty') - might be because I've been conscious for nearly 26 hours

[varo]

dini(paul dini) is the writer of the jla animated series. before that batman (what many consider the best animated series ever) as well as tiny toons.

him and bruce timm have teamed up on some of the best cartoons to ever hit a televsion screen.

[HappyCanuck]

Thanks Varo. I think I knew that, but as I said, sleep deprivation. On that note, let me comment on the two recent Justice League cartoons ('Justice League' and it's successor 'Justice League Unlimited'): I am, as I said, a die-hard comic book fanatic, even watching cartoon series based on them - everything from the original Superfriends (mostly for nostalgic reasons, as I remember this show from when i was a boy), to the original X-Men and Spider-Man series' in the 90's, to the Batman/Superman (and amalgamated Batman/Superman series that came afterwords) series, to the Teen Titans (tho not necessarily a 'fan' of the manga/anime genre), to the JL series'. And I loved them all for their own reasons. But the BM/SM and JL series, moreso, they are what caught me, mostly because they do on screen what I do in my head with comics - analyse the possibilities and plausibilities of natural physics and apply them to comic book escapism constructs. yes, there are areas that are either VERY grey (ie: how does superman fly, and how is he bulletproof and STILL technically weigh roughly that of a normal man - all things I have my own ideas toward, but nothing confirmed). They, like their comic book predecessors (more so since the late 90s), try to make their characters make sence from a realistic POV.

There are exceptions of course, some blatantly highly improbably (well moreso than anything in a comic book), but nonetheless interesting in and of itself - as if the writers aren't sure how its done, so they are ignoring it for the time being until they can work out the logistics and physics (such as how the Atom can breath or see when he goes smaller than the size of a photon (JLA #20, 1998 - to which Atom replies 'Don't think about it, it'll only make your head hurt'). But, overall, the writing makes sence, and so do the characters and their abilities. Some who dont - such as the previously meantioned Atom (and a possible Marvel equivelent, Antman) - they retconn using literary devices, such as 'secret physics', creating new physical laws that just barely reside within REAL physics that it could plausibly be true. Some of these 'secret physics' fail, but are generally ignored as soon as they happen (which is the piss-off for ppl like me), or retconned out of existence. (This, naturally, doesn't include magic-using characters, since, by nature, magic isn't SUPPOSED to make sence. It's the reason why I VERY rarely comment on the hows and whatnots of magic - it's literary purpose is to do the impossible, so it gets a 'free slide' ticket.)

Before I delve too far into babbling, let's just say I like these series because, tho they DO cater to those whom are of a strictly escapist route, it doesn't alienate me in my analytical mindframe, just feeding me enough to work out the rest of the 'how's and whatnots to myself.

[Northcott]

...Analyse the possibilities and plausibilities of natural physics and apply them to comic book escapism constructs. yes, there are areas that are either VERY grey (ie: how does superman fly, and how is he bulletproof and STILL technically weigh roughly that of a normal man - all things I have my own ideas toward, but nothing confirmed).

As an aside, Dini was a huge fan of the Byrne reboot of Superman. That's a large part of the reason why Dini's vision of Krypton was so similar.

That being said, and looking at the way he treats Superman in the series, it seems that he's using the same basis for powers as well: that while genetically "perfect" and stronger than human norm, the major portion of Superman's might and invulnerability don't come from straight physical resiliency, but rather from unconscious kinetic manipulation. He's easier to hurt when you surprise him, he has an easier time lifting things if he's trying to fly with them, he's far more dangerous when focused on taking someone or something down (which is why he always seems more powerful when mustering the willpower to defend innocent people), etc.

The explaination also forms a convenient literary tool, allowing a writer to have villains challenge Superman without necessarily being the powerhogs it would take to overpower him when he's at his peak.

[kozzi24]

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.[/quote]

[Le Messor]

The question of the day: 'Why Heather in the suit?'
I've thought about this, and I think I've figured out an answer.

You're right, -anybody- could take it after Mac died. Sean Benard. Some nameless soldier. Anybody.

But if it -was- them, we'd really be asking 'Why him / her / it?'
An Alphan? Why double powers?

But Heather proved herself as a team leader long before she put it on. She was the heart of the team, the one who gathered them together, etc...
There was nobody better while Mac was dead.

After he got back? It seems inefficient to take her out of it. She's had much more experience at it than Mac. And, think about it, who's the better driver? Michael Schumacher, or Ferdinand Porsche? It's the guy who drives, not the guy who designed the car.

I vote the redhead.
Did anybody else notice the Llan idol in the latest Uncanny X-Men?

- Le Messor
"Computer Science is embarrassed by the computer."

[HappyCanuck]

Couldn't phrase it better myself.