Claremont vs Byrne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northcott

You know, a lot of people refer back to Byrne as their favourite Alpha writer -- and I did love those first 12 issues -- but he wrote an ongoing series like a mini-series. Characters that were perfectly designed to be iconic, powerful (in terms of symbolism and practical power both), and enduring were chopped up to make for a great 12 issue run instead of building them for the long haul. That's a damned big mistake.

The more I think about it, the more that Claremont stands out as my favourite Alpha writer. Sure, he only handled them in a very limited fashion, but it was in the X-Men that we saw Mac scrap it out with some of the X-Men's powerhouses alone. We saw Snowbird, Shaman, and Mac team up with Wolvie and Nightcrawler to take on the bloody Wendigo, of all creatures! We got to see Alpha actually act like a team in spite of their bickering; strong and competent, taking on the X-Men at the height of their power and fighting it out to a draw.

---

Byrne referred to his approach on Alpha to being linked limited series. He did also have plans that he never followed thru on, including a larger story of Aurora's MPD & yellow costume.

Claremont's handling of Alpha was also great on the 1st X-Men/AF limited series. Highlights for me remain as Alpha's vulnerability to telepathic attack and the interplay between Aurora, Sasquatch and Northstar and the subsequent interplay between Rogue and Northstar.

How does everyone else measure Claremont's Alpha work against Byrnes?

I really liked all their appearances in X-Men (first appearance and the Wendigo story) by Claremont (with Byrne co-plotting).

The Alpha Flight/X-Men two-parter was great. Chris C. might do a pretty good job with AF, if he'd just step away from the X-men for a bit (which I know he has) and give them a try.

Too bad Millar didn't get to do AF (It sounds like he may have done a much more classic version of the team), instead...We have to wait more.

Dana

It's kind of funny, but until I made that post I'd never really given thought to Claremont as an Alpha writer -- I'd always attributed their origins to Byrne. But the more I think back on it, the more I think that I prefer Claremont's vision of them. The team seemed to get more of a "traditional" four-colour treatment: more hero, less zero.

Dana: Have you read much of Millar's work? I've got mixed feelings on his stuff. Some of it resonates with me, some not so much... but this is the guy who carried the Ultimate line for a long time, scripting both Ultimate X-Men and the Ultimates. If what other people have done to Alpha has upset you in the past, I can't help but think that what Millar might have done would have been very displeasing to you.

In the Ultimates the Hulk is a mass murderer, and it's been suggested that he does even more awful things off camera. He's eaten at least one foe. Yes, eaten.

Captain America... well, he's very 1940's, except for certain slips in dialogue.

Thor is the God of Inclimate Weather and Hippies.

Hank Pym/Giant Man is a psychotic wife beater with a tiny ego and big anger management problems who's been known to beat Janet/the Wasp so badly as to blacken her eyes, crack the roof of her mouth, and put her in a coma at one point. Janet's a dizzy little thing who craves attention above all else, is an enabler for Hank's abusive tendancies, and has a penchant for infidelity.

His work on the Authority hasn't been much different.

Granted, he also wrote some fun tales in the old Superman Adventures series... but I don't know that he'd feel constrained to traditional heroics with Alpha. The stories would certainly be compelling, though, and likely be highly controversial -- even among non-Alpha fans.

Hmmm...You have a good point about Millar, Ed. I haven't really read anything by him, but everything I have heard about the Ultimates justs turns my stomach. It just kept sounding like the Avengers-Watchmen style...With superhumans that can hardly be called heroes...Blech....It's not for me.

Dana

Claremont, Yay! He's not as arrogant as Byrne (by Byrne's rep, and me meeting Claremont. Once.)

But he didn't do Alpha Flight # 1 - 28. Which is what got me into comics.
What would they have been like if Claremont had written them? More conventional, certainly; not the 'solo series' thing, which I always liked.

But, hey, maybe they'd have been better?
And, even if they weren't... Chris sticks with things! He'd have been on it a little longer than 28 issues, and it would have been good much, much longer!

Millar... He is a good writer. But his stuff is so sleazy... I always feel like I need a shower after reading an issue. I've read, like, six of Ultimate X-Men and at least the first trade of Ultimates, and couldn't stomach any more.

- Le Messor
"An anthropologist at Tulane has just come back from a field trip to New Guinea with reports of a tribe so primitive that they have Tide but not new Tide with lemon-fresh Borax."
- David Letterman

At the risk of being redundent, I think that Claremont brought alot to AF. It was hea nd Byrne together that gave AF the popularity to spin their own title out of the UXM.

However, I personally wasn't all that impressed with any of the AF volumes, most of Byrne's work included.... but the Omega flight arc was great, except that he killed Mac in the end.

So, anyway, when I think of why the initial stories were great, and the later stories ranged from "good, but" to "not bad" to "complete crap", the only missing ingredient I can spot is Claremont.

I don't want to dis Byrne as I've enjoyed alot of his other work, but I have to attribute AF's greatness at least as much to Claremont as Byrne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Le Messor

Millar... He is a good writer. But his stuff is so sleazy... I always feel like I need a shower after reading an issue. I've ready, like, six of Ultimate X-Men and at least the first trade of Ultimates, and couldn't stomach any more.

---

I think that sums it up well; he's a good writer, but seems to be depending on the shock value of having heroes act like sleaze lately -- which is a shame. I think his stuff is better than that.

His work on the Ultimates has had some brilliant high points, for example. In contrast with what I mentioned above, Captain America has rocked the house: in a world filled with screw-ups, Cap's 1940's attitude of old-fashioned manliness and heroism stands out far and above everybody else. And like a man with attitudes from the 1940's, every now and again he comes across as a bit of a dinosaur... but in the end he's the man who's standing up for what's right. He's slipped here and there, but he invariably regains his footing.

Thor has rocked the world. Everybody assumes he's a nutjob who thinks he's Thor, and Millar left it ambiguous as to whether he is and it's Loki screwing with everybody's minds, or if he's really a mental patient who happened to abscond with high-tech gadgets of great power (a harness that grants massive might, a hammer that can control the weather). They hinted at that kind of thing in mainstream Marvel, even in the Kirby days, and Millar's taken it to the next level. Yet he never ceases to battle on, no matter how badly he's been beaten down physically or emotionally. He's an absolute rock in both ways.

Iron Man rocks. Stark is portrayed as remarkably brilliant, and a workaholic as well as an alcoholic -- but a large part of why he drinks is to a) dumb down that massive brain of his so he can function, and b) to deal with the brain tumour that could kill him at any moment. Faced with the prospect of sudden and unexpected death looming over him, what does the billionaire playboy do? He decides to do some good in the world, and becomes Iron Man. Flawed character turned to brilliant hero.

That's what kept me reading the Ultimates until I got sick of the sporadic schedule. The three characters I perceive as the "core" were done with a twist, but very true to the heart of what they are. His Ultimate X-Men was pretty much the opposite experience for me, though. I collected it for the first 14 or so issues, waiting for it to get good. The book seemed more concerned with being "cool" than telling a character-driven story.

There's been some very good points here highlighting what Claremont did in regards to AF, but I'm gonna have to come out in Byrnes corner. Claremont and Byrne may have designed and thought up the characters (is that really the case? Or did Claremont just say we need so and so for UXM), but it was Byrne who gave us the amazing visuals. Seeing Mac busting out of the ground in UXM #109 is probably one of the most vivid images from my early days of comics reading. Sas throwing the plane, Shaman fighting the egg monster and so many more. Those initial issues of AF when the whole team was fleshed out and given histories. Then of course my all time fave issue #13 vol 1, those opening pages, which said so much without any balloons. While I'll always be grateful to Claremont for what he did in regards to AF, for me it's Byrne who made them so popular.

Just my take.

As for Millar, I like him as a person and a writer, but I don't buy his super hero stuff. I enjoyed his Authority and Wanted etc, but his super hero stuff leaves me cold. Then again who would want Alan Moore writing Archie and Veronica? Different story types, different concepts, but still good in there own right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DelBubs

Then again who would want Alan Moore writing Archie and Veronica?

---

"Tell me, Jughead... why did you have to eat Veronica's leg after you killed her with that cleaver?"

So, anyway.

I prefered Claremont's handling, because he gave AF tremendous respect every time he handled them, which is something a lot of comic writers have trouble doing. He was primarily an X-Men scribe, but he resisted having the X-Men walk all over AF when they tunred up in the X-Men's own book. If look at comics as a whole, that's pretty damn rare.

Claremont gave us the Brood, Donald Pierce, and maybe the Reavers,...but Byrne gave us WILD CHILD 8) !
DON'T MAKE ME CHOOSE!!!

I am also in Byrne's corner. Some of the highlights:
His exploration of Aurora vs Jeanne-Marie, the civilian ID vs the super-hero personified in MPD.
The beans to kill off Mac
The deft subtlety in hanfing Morthstar's secret
Snowbird ripping out her teammates heart
The team interaction: they worked together, but in several cases clearly did not like each other.
The sham resurrection of Mac

I started in comics with Star Wars, The Further Adventures of Indiana Jones and s/f & fantasy toy lines. Crystar introduced me to Alpha Flight. Alpha introduced me to the super hero genre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kozzi24

I am also in Byrne's corner. Some of the highlights:
His exploration of Aurora vs Jeanne-Marie, the civilian ID vs the super-hero personified in MPD.
The beans to kill off Mac
The deft subtlety in hanfing Morthstar's secret
Snowbird ripping out her teammates heart
The team interaction: they worked together, but in several cases clearly did not like each other.
The sham resurrection of Mac

---

I think Byrne did great work in fleshing out the characters and bringing them to life, and there were doubtlessly moments of brilliance in his run. I think, however, that he set the team up for failure, whereas Claremont portrayed them as he would any other powerful, iconic superhero team -- and that's where he gains an edge for me.

Had Byrne treated Alpha the way that he treated the Fantastic Four, Superman, or other iconic assignments he took on (with the exception of Wonder Woman), I think we'd have seen a longer-lived book. Team books tend to inspire the strongest tales with their core members in place. Byrne didn't just fracture the core with the potential for restoration later, he utterly destroyed it and trashed some of the most potent, recognizeable, and iconic characters in his run. His treatment of Inuit culture was abysmal and insulting. There were moments of brilliance, but awful choices (imho) that were equal valleys to those high peaks.

Ideally I'd loved to have seen a balance. I've always imagined my ideal Alpha as having some of Byrne's fantastic characterization with Claremont's iconic, over-the-top heroism in action.

... but then, Byrne also _drew_ Alpha.
would I have loved it as much with whoever pencilled for Claremont?

That's a big question, and makes a big difference to me.

Of course it also opens a whole new can of worms for the kettle of fish who're calling the pot black desiato of disaster area...

- Le Messor
"An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing."
- Nicholas Murray Butler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northcott

Had Byrne treated Alpha the way that he treated the Fantastic Four, Superman, or other iconic assignments he took on (with the exception of Wonder Woman), I think we'd have seen a longer-lived book. Team books tend to inspire the strongest tales with their core members in place. Byrne didn't just fracture the core with the potential for restoration later, he utterly destroyed it and trashed some of the most potent, recognizeable, and iconic characters in his run. His treatment of Inuit culture was abysmal and insulting. There were moments of brilliance, but awful choices (imho) that were equal valleys to those high peaks.

---

The original book lasted 102 issues--EIGHT YEARS--past Byrne, so can you really say anything HE did affected the life of the book? Byrne left most of the team assembled, minus Mac who he clearly established as dead, and Sasquatch. Byrne's contribution seems to me to have been setting a standard that no one else could match with the characters.

Bill Mantlo killed Snowbird, villainized and vilified Talisman, removed Shaman, removed Puck and the twins. Hundall's stories suffered from bad art. Nicienza started by returning the "decisively dead" character. Furman used way too many characters, and both Furman and Lobdell were doing some 90's overdo, particularly with the Wolverine-clone character Weapon Omega/Wildheart.

Part of the vol 2/vol 3/Omega debate is about the classic team...they seem to be received well by new readers when making appearances such as in Wolverine or Black Panther, and the big glaring thing to older readers who did not follow AF post Byrne is "Wait, Mac IS decisively dead." Those who read on thru Mantlo knew that Snowbird was also decisively dead...the biggest problem with the "recent" appearances of the classic team is that they were retro'd to be the team in Uncanny X-Men 120-121 (plus Puck), thus ignoring all development by Byrne. If the teams cartoon appearances excluded Snowbird and had Heather in the suit, I don't think anyone would object.

When those from or knowledgible of Intuit culture are offended by the "insult" to the original culture, I think they are forgetting that what Byrne did was create a fictional-world culture based in part on Intuit culture, the same way Stan Lee created a fictional culture based in part on Norse culture. Stan Lee's advantage was that his source culture was so far removed in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kozzi24

When those from or knowledgible of Intuit culture are offended by the "insult" to the original culture, I think they are forgetting that what Byrne did was create a fictional-world culture based in part on Intuit culture, the same way Stan Lee created a fictional culture based in part on Norse culture. Stan Lee's advantage was that his source culture was so far removed in time.

---

I don't think you can compare Byrne's handling of Inuit culture/religion with Lee's handling of the Norse-Germanic. Speaking as someone that has studied Norse-Germanic culture for 'round about 15 years, I have that that it is well grounded in the Eddaic myths. Sure, there are definitely some inconsistencies, such as Thor's hair colour, mild temperment, or pigeonholing as a god of "thunder" (he was/is more a god of might and main), or Odin's girth, but it wasn't an entirely subjecitve invention that simply had the designation "Norse" attached to it. About the most insulting thing I ever encountered in Thor was the early portrayal of Tyr as a selfish villain, envious of the glory of Thor. Also, Thor's disgust with his own mortal worshippers who were sacking a monastery. Not that sacking ANY holy place is right and worthy, but it is understandable given the events of the age that immediately preceded the Viking Age, ie. the Carolingian evangelization of the Continental Germanic peoples.

Anyway, while I am certainly no expert on Inuit belief, I have tried to google some of the stuff found in AF and came up with nothing, notta, zero, zilch. Inuit beleifs however, are represented and resources do exist... even prior to the internet. Byrne shoud've done his homework.

I mean, I think it is fairly clear that us Canadians don't like it when our country is presented from a standpoint of ignorance. And heck, Canada (or any other multi-national state in the West) is less about nation or culture, and more politics and political institutions, ie. not very heartfelt.

Anyway...

Cheers!