The Suit: Heather or Mac?

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Sas fills the human fascination with superhuman might,

---

and as a true archtype of the beast/animal helper

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

(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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kozzi24

Quote:

---

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

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.)

---

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

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...

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kozzi24

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]

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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)?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!")

Quote:

---

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!)

Quote:

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

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!

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northcott

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.