« With Great Publishing Contracts Comes Great Responsibility | Main | Things You Won't Learn From Industry Propaganda »
June 29, 2007
Sentinels!
While trying to find a clip of the Morlock's to defend myself from accusations of class bias -- rather than comic book geekery -- in the thread below, i came across this great clip from the old X-Men cartoon.
Man. I forgot how much I loved that show.
Update: In comments, Josh writes:
The X-Men concept works best in a limited medium like animation or film than in a comic-book series that must go on forever. An endless comic run means that the X-Men must always fail in their goals. And that undermines the basic concept on which the book is based. We're supposed to believe that Professor X's methods are superior to Magneto's, yet Professor X must never win any real or lasting gains. If he did, then it would undermine the comic's premises. So there must always be setbacks and there can never be any real improvements in the mutant situation. This makes the Professor look not like an idealist, but a misguided fool - and leads to the conclusion that maybe Magneto was right after all. I don't think that's what the writers were going for.
Now we're getting somewhere! I disagree that success for the X-Men is based on lasting gains of the sort that would resolve the Xavier/Magneto conflict. A flowering of enduring tolerance and harmony will never exist in a world where mutants walk around with world-ending powers locked behind the shaky bars of their willpower and sunny outlook. In that way, Magneto is almost obviously right in a predictive sense: In the long-run, there will be either a world run by mutants, or a world destroyed by mutants. Traditional humans are just too weak to remain competitive.
The success of the X-Men is entirely in delaying that world, in protecting the suboptimal status quo, rather than moving towards some delightfully multicultural future. Even if true respect and acceptance isn't in the offing, keeping the uneasy balance between a world in which humans are institutionally dominant but mutants are more powerful is probably better than one in which humans are either killed or in servitude. Xavier's ideology may speak of something far more pleasant than that uneasy balance, but in reality, it works to keep that compromise viable.
June 29, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
The cartoon has nothing on the comic book.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 2:12:59 PM
I disagree. The X-Men concept works best in a limited medium like animation or film than in a comic-book series that must go on forever. An endless comic run means that the X-Men must always fail in their goals. And that undermines the basic concept on which the book is based. We're supposed to believe that Professor X's methods are superior to Magneto's, yet Professor X must never win any real or lasting gains. If he did, then it would undermine the comic's premises. So there must always be setbacks and there can never be any real improvements in the mutant situation. This makes the Professor look not like an idealist, but a misguided fool - and leads to the conclusion that maybe Magneto was right after all. I don't think that's what the writers were going for.
In a limited series, they don't need to do that. My favorite episode of the original animated series was The Final Decision, which was the first-season finale. This shows the X-Men at their idealistic best, and emphasizes the Professor's edge over Magneto without making Magneto into an utter bastard. (He gets the episode's single best line.) And most of all, the X-Men actually win a real and lasting victory: the anti-mutant presidential candidate changes his views, and the change actually lasts. In contrast, the comics tell us that the Professor is right, but constantly show us that Magneto is right - that the human population is a mass of seething hatred against mutants and nothing can change that. Because if it was changed, the writers wouldn't be able to write more stories. Or at least they'd have to think harder, and we couldn't have that, could we?
Posted by: Josh G. | Jun 29, 2007 2:35:16 PM
I liked it so much that I ended up having a guilty pleasure--I liked X-Men Evolution [hides face in shame].
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 29, 2007 2:37:42 PM
old X-Men cartoon
Old?!? I was in f-in grad school when that cartoon debuted!
Oh, I'm the thing that's old.
Posted by: John | Jun 29, 2007 2:54:10 PM
OK, liberals are scaring me now.
Posted by: charles pierce | Jun 29, 2007 3:05:59 PM
Sounds like America's Taiwan policy.
Posted by: Greg Sanders | Jun 29, 2007 3:36:49 PM
Is this going to turn into a House of M debate?
Posted by: Regault | Jun 29, 2007 3:48:41 PM
Doesn't the relatively small number of mutants create a situation (at least in the short term, for the few generations where mutations aren't distributed in the genepool) where the mutants can't really afford to fight too much with the normals?
Even mutant humans are sort of social animals who have needs that are optimally met by division of labor in a society, right? Just because you can shoot fireballs doesn't make you a super-farmer or a super-HVAC repairman. There's a game theory aspect to this: a single mutant can really acculumate some power, but it's better for mutants generally if they're integrated into society. In that case, I think that Professor X's mission is, by its nature, ongoing, ensuring that the live-and-let-livers aren't screwed by the threat of Magneto-style defectors. The status quo isn't "suboptimal" until there are enough mutants that the mutant trains run on time.
It's somewhat different than the situation in, say, Harry Potter, where the wizards utilize their powers specifically to keep hidden, but there's a similar dynamic: the Ministry, like Professor X, has the ongoing, workaday responsibility of keeping the status quo so wizards (a very tiny and insular population) can go about their lives, while Voldemort, like Magneto, is a "defector" who knows he can leverage his powers and doesn't care about the code of secrecy.
Debate topic - is Harry Potter geekery geekier, less geeky, or just differently geeky than X-Men geekery?
Posted by: SDM | Jun 29, 2007 3:52:54 PM
Dammit, charles, that's the *second* keyboard you've ruined for me this week.
[prepares dishwasher rack]
Posted by: Captain Goto | Jun 29, 2007 4:26:51 PM
I don't think the X-Men would have thought of themselves as maintaining the suboptimal status quo, but as a slow and evolving process. Not to get too political or to demean a serious cause, but would you say Martin Luther King, Jr.'s work was a failure just because racial issues still exist?
In the "clash of the titans" view you take, the status quo is indeed as good as it could get. In the "metaphor for civil rights" view, though, the X-Men do/did make progress. When the series began, the X-Men were seen as boogiemen and their adventures amounted to forestalling pograms on a weekly basis. (That dynamic lasted until the mid-1990s or later, I think, but hey.) More recently, though, they and their spinoffs have been policing their own in day-to-day life in a diverse society. The "Chamber" miniseries, the "District X" series, etc. Reset buttons and comic book time suck, yes, but I don't think they affect the X-Men any more than any other comic book characters.
I liked X-Men Evolution more than the early '90s one as well, don't worry.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 29, 2007 4:32:01 PM
Okay, now we are my territory- comic books. I've been collecting since I was 7 years old (sad but true).
Let me respond as best I can. Josh posits a complicated question. The thing is- it depends on what you see as progress. The problem with the animated series is that as with politics one is left with simplistic constructs of failures and sucess.
In the books, one can explore themes of progress, and revisit them years later. The point isn't that progress isn't possible. It is that the struggle to achieve it is never simple or easy, or ever over. You see the fact that it's never over as a bad thing.
It's not. It's the core of what life is. The reason why people think we can just get over the race thing is because they think racism is over. It doesn't aknowledge that this is fundamentally about human nature.
Not to go too deep, but human psychology and evolution was based on discrimination. The complexity of our discriminatory abilities - the ability to group and categorize- is what makes us in part a thinking species. We are able to differentiate and to determine like situations versus differences. Sometimes in false ways, but the overall ability exists.
The X-men is then about the fact there will always be an outgroup. The faces may change and the context may change, but they will always exist. The failure of history is to not realize this.
By the way, in the comic book sometimes Xavier is wrong, and other times, he's right. In the comic book, there are mulitiple point of views. Xavier and Magneto are only two. There is genetic darwinism in the form of Apocalypse. The Corporatist mindset in the form of Sebastian Shaw of the Hellfire Club. There is the complicated situational ethics of Emma Frost. That's what a book can do that a cartoon can not- bring complexity to the never ending struggle.
In a sense- it's a democratic question. People (progressives and conservatives) seem to think there is some end of history moment where their ideals will be perfected when in actuality the point is that the struggle morphs and changes.
Is there progress? There can be- BUT- only if one is ever vigilant. The failures in the comic book often occurs when the characters become complacent. Right now, the story arc running through the series- Endangered Species - a multiple book story arc- indeed specificially looks at the complacency of the status quo and what happens when all the rules are changed. What happens when one mutant - with a single sentence- "no more mutants" eliminates all mutants except a few?
In other words, with all of this- and why the cartoon fails is because the point is the struggle- not whether one will eventually suceed because sucess is measured in the day to day rather than the forever after.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 4:45:32 PM
One other point- for this reason- the fact that it's not forever after- the real thing is to realize all policies and all actions are contextual, and must constantly be looked at to see if they are actually working or have we become complacent? Do we have equality if gays are discriminated against just because blacks are less discriminated against since teh days of Jim Crow? A few days ago- several progressives may have argued differently. But now with the S Ct ruling- which our complacency as a country allowed to happen- what do you think now? This is how the comic book at its best mirrors life even if it's in a fantastical way.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 4:51:09 PM
A flowering of enduring tolerance and harmony will never exist in a world where mutants walk around with world-ending powers locked behind the shaky bars of their willpower and sunny outlook.
Among the many bonuses of storytelling under a limited medium is that power levels can be restricted to something less than outright world-ending, maintaining the integrity of the book's allegory.
I mean plainly a race of people capable of lifting say a few hundred pounds at a time with their mind or being able to blow up oh, a Honda Civic by looking at it is still a race that legitimately has something to fear from institutionalized authority. After 30 years' collective storytelling has bumped them up to the point that a good number of them can tear apart the fabric of reality without any particular level of exertion then the premise sort of breaks down, pretty much humanity has to start a war it can't win or just give up and admit that it's fucked.
In the books, one can explore themes of progress, and revisit them years later. The point isn't that progress isn't possible. It is that the struggle to achieve it is never simple or easy, or ever over. You see the fact that it's never over as a bad thing.
No, the point is that progress isn't possible, because the medium dictates that progress is either never achieved or wull ultimately be stripped away in order to return to the status quo.
I mean struggle between humans and mutants and other mutants nothing, how many times have they got Xavier up out of that wheelchair, and then stuck him right back in it again?
Posted by: dan | Jun 29, 2007 5:28:02 PM
I seem to recall a comicbook starting with the tagline "Change is coming"-- part of the appeal of the mutant fantasy has long been the identification with forces that challenge the status quo (albeit through their raw outsider awesomeness)-- a sort of hippie/punk teleology. The very motto word "mutant" speaks to the necessity and inevitability of change. It's an intriguingly revisionist interpretation of the X-men to see them as the forces working to preserve the status quo, champions of the liberal ideal though they may be.
Of course, since 16 million mutants got butchered in the destruction of Genosha, and 90% of the remainder were wiped out by the Scarlet Witch, the "Mutants rule or destroy the world" theory isn't looking as viable as it once did.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Jun 29, 2007 6:11:27 PM
Dan- you only see progress as not achieved because you want and end. Let me give you the same advice when I asked my great mother whether there will ever be an end to the struggle? "Yes, when they lower you into the ground." She was harsh, but she was making a point that she explained. The process - which is my point- is what it is about rather than an end to all suffering. The goal is to always fight suffering because that's the end rather than the absolute end of suffering. Without fighting it, it wouldn't be minimized. In the lead up to the present story arc Cyclops askes or Wolverine- I forget who- why do we fight? And again I forget the wording- the one character says because we have to fight. That's what democracies and fighting for rights are about. Not that we will eliminate all suffering, but that we fight to minimize it for a better life.
We are actually arguing here a fundamental disagreement I have with idealogues. You always look for some end of time solution that will create a utopia. The point of the long form story- not just comic books versus a finite cartoon- but say the difference bewteen a film and an ongoing series- is that you get to explore. You get to realize that even if you bringing utopia to some, you hurt others. The process of minimizing suffering and bringing about freedom from opression is the point. Not that you will reach a day when you will rest, look back and think- okay finally I am at happily everafter.
Xavier isn't in the wheelchair again. But he maybe again.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 6:25:48 PM
Anthony they apparently about to mix it up again as they have figured a way around the extintion event.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 6:26:52 PM
Ezra makes some interesting points.
In that way, Magneto is almost obviously right in a predictive sense: In the long-run, there will be either a world run by mutants, or a world destroyed by mutants. Traditional humans are just too weak to remain competitive.
The comic books did attempt to address this on several occasions. One concept (which has since been ditched, in the wake of Decimation) was that mutant births would steadily increase while births of baseline humans would decrease, so that eventually there would be no more humans. Humans might be part of a dying species, but they would see their mutant children and grandchildren inherit the earth. The goal of the X-Men, then, would be to ensure that this transition happened in a peaceful and orderly manner, without either violence on part of the ascendant mutants or a backlash on the part of baseline humans. But the problem with this is that it doesn't mesh well with the analogy to real-world minority groups.
Akaison raises some criticisms of my original statement. He points out that, in real life, "the struggle to achieve [progress] is never simple or easy, or ever over." True enough. Progress moves in fits and starts, but it does move nonetheless. Yes, there are setbacks in real civil rights movements, like that ridiculous Supreme Court decision on school assignments. But the fact remains that we aren't going back to Plessy. We aren't going back to the era in which black kids would be kept out of the neighborhood school because of the color of their skin. We aren't going back to the era in which prominent Southern politicians could say "nigger" in public and hope to get away with it. We aren't going back to the era in which a 14-year-old black boy could be lynched by a local mob and the mob could then be acquitted by a sympathetic local jury. There is still much work to be done, but there has been plenty of real progress in the real world.
There hasn't been in the X-Men comics, and that makes Professor X look like a fool. If Dr. King and his successors had attempted peaceful change for FORTY YEARS and nothing had happened - we had no Civil Rights Act, blacks were still chased around by angry lynch mobs, and prominent people still said "nigger" without shame - wouldn't that make Malcom X look much more attractive by comparison?
Not only haven't the comics shown progress, they've shown regress. Less than a year ago, we had the X-Mansion used as a concentration camp for the world's few remaining mutants.
By the way, in the comic book sometimes Xavier is wrong, and other times, he's right. In the comic book, there are mulitiple point of views. Xavier and Magneto are only two. There is genetic darwinism in the form of Apocalypse. The Corporatist mindset in the form of Sebastian Shaw of the Hellfire Club. There is the complicated situational ethics of Emma Frost. That's what a book can do that a cartoon can not- bring complexity to the never ending struggle.
I disagree with your premise that an animated series can't portray complexity (the X-Men animated series sometimes did, Justice League definitely did so). That might have been true back in the days of He-Man and Super Friends, but today the writing is much better than it was, and the writers aren't afraid to show that the heroes aren't always perfect.
Apocalypse and Sinister have ideologies, but we're not really expected to take them seriously. The ideologies are so blatantly bad that, from a writing perspective, they're little more than justifications for having the villains act the way they do. (And the animated series portrayed both of them, and gave 'em pretty much the same social-Darwinian justifications for their actions as the comics did.) Likewise, if we were intended to take the Hellfire Club as sympathetic characters, I think they might have given them a less inflammatory name. The only two philosophies that have been treated sympathetically by the writers are Xavier's and Magneto's.
Posted by: Josh G. | Jun 29, 2007 6:37:34 PM
Actually in the present story arc gives Shaw a sympathetic appeal. Also, Frost who came out of the Hellfire Club also doesn't play by the moral rules of Xavier or Magneto, and she is given sypathetic anti-hero appeal. Indeed, in the present arc she's the one who talks of Xaviers hubris. This hubris is the point- she points out that Xaviers and the way of others is about control that we can't have. THe idea that we can control the future.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 7:11:56 PM
By the way- her point if I didn't make it clear- seems to be that hubris of believing that oen can control the direction that the future will take is ultimately hubris , and Xavier like many of lead characters at Marvel these days , especially in organizations like the Illuminati have been trying to control things they can not or shouldn't control
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 7:29:00 PM
I love how all mutants seem to shop at the same mall! And also, Rogue fights pretty well for someone wearing a fugly minidress.
The necessity of never ever resolving a storyline is what makes comics equivalent to soap operas (no one ever dies for good in either one, or ages properly, or finds true love, etc.) Which is why I don't read/watch either anymore...it's hard to care what happens to characters when everything is reversible and there must be Infinite Do Overs to keep the franchise going. It makes true character development not only nonexistent, but forbidden.
Posted by: emjaybee | Jun 29, 2007 7:44:19 PM
the last poster hasn't read comic books in a while. The point at which they were closest to soaps were the late 80s and much of the 1990s. in 2000s due to the influences of an aging audience (such as myself) and groundbreaking comic books by guys like Bendis and Gaiman, they have changed a lot. There isn't an ending, but there is great story telling. but i guess if you want things settled and done as most of the right and left do- the process isn't something you can enjoy.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 7:47:24 PM
Re: Morlocks.
Ezra, I apologize and retract everything in my post on the previous comment thread. I don't know a damn thing about popular culture, and didn't know where your Morlocks came from. Peccavi, mea culpa.
Posted by: Joe S. | Jun 29, 2007 9:13:40 PM
akaison, I am aware of the better class of books by Gaiman et al..since we were discussing X-Men, and how it never resolved, I assumed we were in the realm of superhero comics. Which, despite all the Infinite Crisis/Dark Knight/Death of Superman attempts at addressing these issues, yada yada are still character franchises that must never be allowed to die...still supporting my point.
Maybe nowadays it's less "Hero X can't really die" and more "Hero X may be dead in THIS dimension...but hey, he's alive in always another one, and we're going to focus on that one now" types of stories. The end result is pretty much the same.
Posted by: emjaybee | Jun 29, 2007 9:59:25 PM
No- where you get it wrong is that the characterizations have become on par in someways with that of Gaiman's work. It's still superhero fantastic, but moral ambiguity (no clear villian versus hero that you might fight in soap operas are part of the story). for example, Marvel recently did a cross over series on hero against hero where the story wasn't about right and wrong but one side against another side. It lead to the death of capt america which may or may not stick, but the point of the cross over wasn't about his death- it was about the moral ambiguity. The same has occured in DC- the Crisis that recently occured for example has wonder woman killing someone and what are heros suppose to be. Speaking of Gaiman- none of his work can be seen as stories with a begining and ending either- not really. The point of his stories are the characterizations and what happens. To me the better series for the questions and no clear answers approach is the recently ended series Lucifer. In that series the question presented was "what is free will" Can one have it if one has been created by someone who can control everything you do? Don't get me wrong- you are maybe right about the endings- but the endings aren't the point. Your fixating on the end misses the point that this is about the process. Some comic book fans of the old school hate the new style because they tend to be much more gritty with all their moral ambiguity. Yes, there is right and wrong, but there are a lot of shades of gray- for example in the Crisis that I mentioned- part of i was that the heros brainwash the villians to be better people and whether again control is okay even if its for a good end.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 11:46:26 PM
by the way-in the case of whether brainwashing is okay- I as someone who is an adult and grounded in my moral beliefs kept flipping back and forth given the situation in which they did it. Basically they did it because the villain threatened to kill all of their families. But then the question becomes if its okay, then when is it not- once you on that slope- where do you go? thats what makes these comic books interesti ng. Not whether X dies and stays dead or not.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 11:49:58 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
