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.