God Loves, Man Kills...

[cmdrkoenig67]

I think I just committed heresy...

http://newsarama.com/common/forums/v...292764#p292764

It's my opinion, but what I read of the posted synopsis, just lead me to that opinion....I have to call it like I see it. It sounds like a badly cliched story.

Dana

[MistressMerr]

You definitely can't judge it without actually reading it. A lot of the thematic stuff became cliche BECAUSE God Loves, Man Kills did it so well. It IS a little heavy-handed at times, but still one of the best X-Men stories ever told, and one that makes about 90% of the others completely redundant.

[cmdrkoenig67]

You definitely can't judge it without actually reading it. A lot of the thematic stuff became cliche BECAUSE God Loves, Man Kills did it so well. It IS a little heavy-handed at times, but still one of the best X-Men stories ever told, and one that makes about 90% of the others completely redundant.

I really don't see how five fake-out deaths in one story would qualify as doing anything well. Is the story synopsis inaccurate? Did the writer of the synopsis mislead me or did the story's events happen as he says they did? Having not read it I can't make a complete assessment, yet this synopsis paints the story as being quite bad....At the moment, it's all I have to go on.

Dana

[MistressMerr]

I really don't see how five fake-out deaths in one story would qualify as doing anything well. Is the story synopsis inaccurate? Did the writer of the synopsis mislead me or did the story's events happen as he says they did? Having not read it I can't make a complete assessment, yet this synopsis paints the story as being quite bad....At the moment, it's all I have to go on.

Dana

When the characters are revealed as being alive barely a few pages later, it hardly counts. The purpose was to have the other characters believe they were dead and then figure out that they weren't for plot purposes, not to trick the audience into thinking that half the main characters had just been unceremoniously killed off, no different than when the X-Men "died" in Dallas. Heck, by that logic, Byrne's Alpha Flight was full of shoddy writing between Sasquatch's fake-out death and those of Northstar/Aurora/Talisman when they went to go bring him back. It was just a story beat. You need to actually read the thing for yourself before you judge it.

My only real complaints against GLMK come from the way that, like I said before, it is really heavy-handed in places, which, considering the way Claremont normally gets when dealing with matters of race or religion, is really saying something, but the strength of the story pulls it through, IMO.

[cmdrkoenig67]

When the characters are revealed as being alive barely a few pages later, it hardly counts. The purpose was to have the other characters believe they were dead and then figure out that they weren't for plot purposes, not to trick the audience into thinking that half the main characters had just been unceremoniously killed off, no different than when the X-Men "died" in Dallas. Heck, by that logic, Byrne's Alpha Flight was full of shoddy writing between Sasquatch's fake-out death and those of Northstar/Aurora/Talisman when they went to go bring him back. It was just a story beat. You need to actually read the thing for yourself before you judge it.

Hold on there!...Sasquatch didn't die a "fake-out" death....Not in the least. He did not show up hale and hearty a couple pages later. Snowbird ripped the beating heart out of his chest...He was dead, his soul was merely trapped in the realm of the Great Beasts (do I really have to explain all of this?)....Yet when Alpha retrieved it, he had no living body to return to (he was still technically dead). Shaman simply used the Box robot as a shell to contain Walter's soul. Walter was never the same character again after those events...How on Earth can it called a fake-out death?

The deaths of Northstar, Aurora and Talisman were equally not "fake-out deaths"...They too were killed, dead, murdered. Walter Langkowski used a part of his soul to resurrect them. I don't see how any of the actual Alphan deaths can be compared to a faked death, illusory death or a death that is misinterpreted, even for a couple of pages...They died (according to the synopsis, none of the X-Men actually did)!

In GLMK: in both instances of their "deaths", was the reading audience aware the whole time that Storm, Cyclops and Professor X really alive?...if so, then I would agree that Claremont was only tricking their fellow X-Men into believing they were dead (in-story) and not trying to fake-out the audience. If the reader is not aware of their "deaths' being anything other than real while reading the story, then I call foul.

My only real complaints against GLMK come from the way that, like I said before, it is really heavy-handed in places, which, considering the way Claremont normally gets when dealing with matters of race or religion, is really saying something, but the strength of the story pulls it through, IMO.

MM, neither you nor anybody else answered my questions my post about the synopsis of GLMK. I suppose I'll have to wait and get my answers from reading the graphic novel itself.

Dana

[MistressMerr]

Hold on there!...Sasquatch didn't die a "fake-out" death....Not in the least. He did not show up hale and hearty a couple pages later. Snowbird ripped the beating heart out of his chest...He was dead, his soul was merely trapped in the realm of the Great Beasts (do I really have to explain all of this?)....Yet when Alpha retrieved it, he had no living body to return to (he was still technically dead). Shaman simply used the Box robot as a shell to contain Walter's soul. Walter was never the same character again after those events...How on Earth can it called a fake-out death?

The deaths of Northstar, Aurora and Talisman were equally not "fake-out deaths"...They too were killed, dead, murdered. Walter Langkowski used a part of his soul to resurrect them. I don't see how any of the actual Alphan deaths can be compared to a faked death, illusory death or a death that is misinterpreted, even for a couple of pages...They died (according to the synopsis, none of the X-Men actually did)!

Oh, so if the character ACTUALLY dies for just a few pages it's okay, if the character is only thought to be dead it's not? So cheap on-the-fly resurrections are okay, revealing they weren't actually killed is not? Alrighty then.

In GLMK: in both instances of their "deaths", was the reading audience aware the whole time that Storm, Cyclops and Professor X really alive?...if so, then I would agree that Claremont was only tricking their fellow X-Men into believing they were dead (in-story) and not trying to fake-out the audience. If the reader is not aware of their "deaths' being anything other than real while reading the story, then I call foul.

For all of a page before the X-Men (and thus the readers) realize "Wait, this is total bull." It hardly counts as much of a fake-out.

MM, neither you nor anybody else answered my questions my post about the synopsis of GLMK. I suppose I'll have to wait and get my answers from reading the graphic novel itself.

What questions? About whether it's accurate or not? Yes, it's a pretty accurate synopsis. But that still doesn't mean you can judge something without actually having read it to get the full picture.

[Le Messor]

I don't love the comic. I guess I think if the message is 'be tolerant', it should be a little less intolerant itself. I'm Christian, and do not like, for some reason, being completely villified.

Oh, and people love to cite Nightcrawler as one of two good Christian characters in comics. You could read every single panel in GLMK and not know it. It's never mentioned, not once.

So, yeah, Dana - I find it clichéd.
People keep suggesting you read it to judge for yourself; PM me and we can arrange that.

- Mik
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
~ Lord Kelvin, 1900

[Flightpath07]

"I don't love the comic. I guess I think if the message is 'be tolerant', it should be a little less intolerant itself. I'm Christian, and do not like, for some reason, being completely villified."

Thanks for that, I 100% agree.

Oh, and people love to cite Nightcrawler as one of two good Christian characters in comics.

A) who are these people, exactly? cuz, i disagree. and, B) who is the other one supposed to be? Firebird from the WCA days? Again, if so, I say "nay".

These are the reasons that I wanna write my own superhero literature. Cuz it'll be what i like; with the morals that i wanna be portrayed, portrayed (or not, not).

[Le Messor]

Oh, and people love to cite Nightcrawler as one of two good Christian characters in comics.

A) who are these people, exactly? cuz, i disagree. and, B) who is the other one supposed to be? Firebird from the WCA days? Again, if so, I say "nay".
These are the reasons that I wanna write my own superhero literature. Cuz it'll be what i like; with the morals that i wanna be portrayed, portrayed (or not, not).

Nightcrawler's about as Christian as you can get in comics without being a villain.

A) It's come up a couple of times, when I've mentioned* that I don't like the way Christians are portrayed in comics. One of them was the editor in chief of Marvel at the time, at a convention.

B) While I have seen Firebird be the cause of a rare sensitive portrayal, the other one is Daredevil.
No, really.

I agree with the 'own literature' part (I don't limit to superhero).

*mentioned: a word that here means 'whinged'

- Le Messor
"He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle."

[MistressMerr]

Nightcrawler's about as Christian as you can get in comics without being a villain.

A) It's come up a couple of times, when I've mentioned* that I don't like the way Christians are portrayed in comics. One of them was the editor in chief of Marvel at the time, at a convention.

B) While I have seen Firebird be the cause of a rare sensitive portrayal, the other one is Daredevil.
No, really.

I agree with the 'own literature' part (I don't limit to superhero).

*mentioned: a word that here means 'whinged'

- Le Messor
"He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle."

I'd say most characters in comics are Christian, as a sort of default. It's just not constantly flaunted.

Nightcrawler's overt Catholicism is actually a more recent thing, and it bugs the heck out of me for that reason. You read things like this or his early Excalibur days, and it's like he's a complete different character from the spiritual "I'm a priest now, randomly!" guy that hung around for the last decade or so. Sometimes a decent job is made of incorporating the two and portraying the way it WAS always there, just not as overtly (the recent issue of Wolverine: Weapon X comes to mind), but usually it's just so awkward. Complaining that Nightcrawler's not Christian enough in GLMK is like complaining that Beast wasn't blue enough in X-Men #1.

Lol, Daredevil. I love the guy, but he is seriously, like, stereotypical Catholic guilt personified. XD

[Le Messor]

I shouldn't have spoken out. This sort of thing can lead to flamewars, and I do not want that on Alpha Waves.



- Mik

"Atmospheric nuclear tests do not seriously endanger either present or future generations."
~ Dr. Edward Teller, 1958

[Legerd]

I shouldn't have spoken out. This sort of thing can lead to flamewars, and I do not want that on Alpha Waves.

You shouldn't be worried about saying your piece LM, we are, for the most part, all mature enough to keep any disagreements friendly.

As for the depiction of Christians, I think when you see ones like the purifiers and Stryker, it's an attempt to show the real life, ultra hardcore Christian groups. The kind that go around with the "God hates fags" signs promoting hate for various sections of society. I don't think any good comic writer would depict all Christians in that way.

I think most people forget that (superhero) comic books are filled with metaphors, some subtle most not. If a character or group is made to look stereotyped, it's probably because the writer is trying to fit a lot of information into a small space to get his/her point across to a vast readership, many of which won't grasp subtler undertones and will therefore miss the message.

[Le Messor]

In that case...

As for the depiction of Christians, I think when you see ones like the purifiers and Stryker, it's an attempt to show the real life, ultra hardcore Christian groups. The kind that go around with the "God hates fags" signs promoting hate for various sections of society. I don't think any good comic writer would depict all Christians in that way.

It's always 'just one kind'. Always.

That's why Nightcrawler not mentioning his faith in the entire issue is such an issue for me. (I believe he was established as a Christian by the time GLMK came out.) Sometime, I'd like to see an attempt to show the real life, ultra hardcore Christian groups. The kind that work for social justice, help the homeless, care about others, would never go around with "God hates fags" signs, and don't promote hate.
Or, at the very least, those of us who are strong in our convictions - believe in one God and are subservient to him, believe in morality - but don't hate or try to kill everyone who believes / acts differently. The kind I actually see, know, and interact with a lot; not the kind who are distant fringe groups.
I just don't - or at least, very very very rarely. When the only portrayals I see are negative, then saying 'we're just attacking one kind of Christianity - the evil kind' stops working.
If you have Marvel's poster-boy for 'We're tolerant. Really.' right there, and he never says so much as 'I'm Christian, and I don't think that way,' it negates the 'We're tolerant. Really.' part.

Also, I'm afraid that saying 'Christians are the default' (btw, the editor-in-chief I mentioned, who I'm beginning to think wasn't the editor-in-chief, said pretty much the same thing) is kind of like saying "nowhere in X-Men #1 did anyone say Beast isn't blue, so all those issues that portray blue people as the worst evil of the world are completely negated.

- Le Messor
"Heavy smokers. Don't throw away those filters from the end of your Cigarettes. Save them up and within a few years you'll have enough to insulate your roof."

[MistressMerr]

Also, I'm afraid that saying 'Christians are the default' (btw, the editor-in-chief I mentioned, who I'm beginning to think wasn't the editor-in-chief, said pretty much the same thing) is kind of like saying "nowhere in X-Men #1 did anyone say Beast isn't blue, so all those issues that portray blue people as the worst evil of the world are completely negated.

I don't see how. Whenever colour casually comes up, characters don't casually mention that they're blue a large majority of the time the way they do with religion and Christianity. Sticking to the X-Men (since that's just what I know best), off the top of my head, Cyclops, Havok, Karma, Gambit, Banshee, Siryn, Dazzler are all established Christians, and that's just off the top of my head (and mostly Catholics, since that's what I am and so I guess they stick in my memory more). Comics are filled with positive Christian portrayals, it's the characters who aren't Christian who tend to be the exceptions.

As for the depiction of Christians, I think when you see ones like the purifiers and Stryker, it's an attempt to show the real life, ultra hardcore Christian groups. The kind that go around with the "God hates fags" signs promoting hate for various sections of society. I don't think any good comic writer would depict all Christians in that way.

I think most people forget that (superhero) comic books are filled with metaphors, some subtle most not. If a character or group is made to look stereotyped, it's probably because the writer is trying to fit a lot of information into a small space to get his/her point across to a vast readership, many of which won't grasp subtler undertones and will therefore miss the message.

See, I agree entirely with the first half of this, but the second part doesn't sit right, mostly just because there are skeezballs like Stryker out there. The story wasn't about painting all Christians as evil, intolerant scum, just these ones, whether Nightcrawler mentions his own faith or not.

As for Kurt at the time, if his Catholicism was established (I think it was at least in passing, but don't quote me on that), it definitely wasn't played as a huge part of his character yet and wouldn't have had much meaning either way.

[Flightpath07]

Have to agree with you, Mik.

Most people do not see that side of Christianity, because they choose not to - it is easier to call those you do not agee with "intolerant" than to try to have some understanding for them. And although i WILL agree that some Christians (and/or those who call themselves one, a whole 'nother topic entirely) harbour intolerance and hatred (and is there any group or sub-group of society where that is not not true?), to paint all of one grouping of society with the same brush, is very irresponsible and is, at its heart, "ironically" very intolerant of the painter.

'Kay, I'm done now. Next topic?