...should be the tagline for the Uncanny X-Men, and should've been years ago. Instead we've always had the "Feared and hated by a world they have sworn to protect..." tagline.
Which, honestly, was always pretty stupid.
Yeah, yeah, I know. The whole "mutant menace" angle was integral to the success of the title (comic book fans identifying with the idea of being misunderstood and abused outsiders? Go figger). It's set the X-Men apart from other "standard" superhero group books as the Avengers and JLA. I get it, really.
But I have to agree with Dave Cockrum, as quoted in an interview back in 1981, in which he says that he always hated the "mutant menace" shtick. As he correctly points out, why would the good people of the Marvel Universe flip out at the sight of the Beast but have no problem with the Thing? Why is it that joining the Avengers gave Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver a free pass on the whole "we hate mutants" thing? Couldn't any mutant who wanted to avoid the hassle just say, "Mutant? Good Lord, no! I, um, got bathed in chemicals in a lab accident at school."
As Cockrum said, it doesn't make any sense -- unless you apply the whole fear and suspicion thing to all superheroes, which isn't any fun.
Elmo covers this ground succinctly in his post today in which he says:
Between Didio's Infinite Crisis, McDuffie's Justice League Unlimited, and Busiek's Dark Age, we're getting a lot of norms-hate-and-fear-superheroes. Yeah, um: Yawn. They're superheroes. They selflessly save people. They go around stopping other people from using weird powers to subjugate humanity. So, y'know, hating and fearing them is irrational. It's not particularly fun to read about.
Amen, bro. I'll make a couple more observations in the comments section of Elmo's post, but I could not agree more. And at this point it's been done to freaking death.
Here's my new angle on all of this: Don't you think there's a weird kind of "Woe is me, we're all victims" reader identification thing at the root of this approach? That "realistic" in this case is really just code for "more appealing to me personally," and that it's appealing to some readers because there's a certain "I may have my vices but whatever I'm being criticized for is not my fault" responsibility dodge that they're identifying with? I mean, the theme of these "poor, hated, superheroes" stories seems to be that you can try really hard to be good but you'll be judged unfairly anyway. Wah. Poor babies.
Oh, it would certainly suck to live in such a world, and I know that's how things look to many, if not most, teenagers, but then you grow up. I dunno. I'm playing armchair psychologist here, but it feels to me that this take on superheroes comes from the same place as the whole "I can only identify with superhero characters who have significant personality flaws" thing. Okay, I've probably sufficiently stirred up that hornets nest for now. :-)
Going back to the X-Men for a second, I was old enough when I became a hardcore X-Men fan that I knew the whole "feared and hated thing" was never going to go away. Nevertheless, deep in my heart I always sort of hoped that there would be a story where the X-Men would save the world in full public view in a situation where the FF and Avengers had already failed, and then they really would be loved and respected by the world and that would be the end of that. Would that have been like a TV series where they play the "will they/won't they get together" card on the romantic leads, where once the two actually do get together reader interest falls off the map if they stay together?
Not for me, but maybe I'm a mutant that way.
--Chris M.
Posted by Chris M. at July 11, 2005 1:07 PM
With respect to the X-Men, the "feared and hated" line is engrained into the definition of the team, in much the same way that "proportionate strength of a spider" and "mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper) are engrained into the definition of other superheroes.
We've talked some in the past about how dangerous it is to damage or abandon the key parts to a particular character--how only Bruce Wayne can be Batman. Under that line of reasoning, you have to be very careful about trying to cure the "hated and feared" part of the X-Men.
Basically, since the underlying problem is that the Avengers and the FF aren't hated and feared, you have to decide: Are the X-Men well-integrated into the Marvel Universe, in which case we have to abandon "hated and feared", or are they dissociated from the Marvel Universe, in which case we don't crossover with the Black Widow or the Hulk, but we do get to keep "hated and feared". How you balance those is a valid kind of creative choice.
OTOH, the same kind of remarks can be laid against the wacky hijinx of the JLA/E/I/O/U era compared to the serious approach that tends to dominate now. Didio's Infinite Crisis is the creative choice that DC has made to resolve the conflict. How is that different from the tone conflict that bugs us about the X-Men's "hated and feared"?
Well, the answer that applies to me is that the JLAEIOU era was comedy, and comedy is immune to certain kinds of criticism because it obeys different rules. You can't criticize a comedy for being unrealistic if it is successfully funny. Integrating a comedy into a realistic environment can only be done by ruthlessly ignoring the irrational and unrealistic. Watch any Marx Brothers movie for a practical example of how this works.
I was sort of under the impression with the Morrison run that the general public was sort of "meh" with regards to fearing and hating mutants. Only the hardcore mutie-haters really cared about the Mutant Menace, and that they were taken as seriously as the average New Yorker takes the anti-Spider-Man editorials by JJJ.
But I agree that part of the core concept of the X-Men is that it's an examination of prejudice (along with teenage angst about not fitting in). When you come down to it, there is no reason that Storm would be hated and feared while Ben Grimm is the ever lovin' idol of millions. But that's the same in the real world - prejudice is irrational.
I think McDuffie is going in interesting and, yes, plausible directions with the story arc in "JLU." I was very pleased at the plot twist where the head of Cadmus (I forget her name, even though she's become one of my favorite characters) decides to fully trust and even help the Justice League once she learns for herself what Luthor has been up to, rather than stay an enemy of the League just because she's the Big Scary Gov'ment Lady.
(I apologize for somehow messing up and putting my comment on the wrong post. If I could delete the misplaced comment, I would.)
"Nevertheless, deep in my heart I always sort of hoped that there would be a story where the X-Men would save the world in full public view in a situation where the FF and Avengers had already failed, and then they really would be loved and respected by the world and that would be the end of that."
They kind of did that with the "Fall of the Mutants" storyline, as I recall, where the X-Men died saving the world in Dallas, leaving X-Factor to score some PR points on the goodwill generated by the X-Men's (apparent) sacrifice. I'm not sure what set things back to normal, although the X-Tinction Agenda, and later Magneto's blowing stuff up in the first arc of the adjectiveless X-Men series, probably had something to do with it.
It's also worth noting that the X-Men and other mutant superheroes seem to spend most of their time fighting other mutants, and some of their less mutant-based victories have been in space or otherwise out of the public view. I think the general public sees mutants as being the cause of divisiveness and violence rather than the victims or the solution.
Of course, it's mostly just one of those things where you have to suspend disbelief. (Just like how Cap can fight the Serpent Society all by himself, but somehow needs the Avengers to fight smaller groups of villains.) As Greg suggested, I think the "hated and feared" angle is a big part of what makes the X-Men the X-Men; otherwise you've just got another superhero team that happens to share a common origin.
I think that there will be no progress or true exploration of the X-Men until Chris Claremont is permanently removed from the franchise. From "Days of Future Past" on Claremont has tended to believe the worst in humanity, as if enduring endless pain and persecution is some gateway to, I dunno.
But he looms large. He consumes all he touches. Only Morrison- and to an extent, maybe Milligan- seems to use him as an influence while striking out on their own path. Whedon's X-Men is entertaining but awfully sad- X-Men isn't about acceptance anymore as it is about circling the wagons and making your own "Special" enclaves.
And creators whine about how nerds need to get a life. While not looking in the mirror and following their own advice.
Maybe I'm talking out my ass, though. I just like the characters.
I don't mind the "feared and hated" stuff as long as there's some decent reason behind it. To take some of the examples:
JLU - Someone has been working pretty hard at engineering situations to make the JLU look scary and bad to the average citizen. And the people who were worried about them initially were professional paranoids. This one works.
X-Men - Yeah, the usual root explanation is "people fear that they will be replaced as a species". But, leaving aside some of the hardcore anti-miscegenists out there, I have difficulty believing that most people would even care. Especially in the U.S., where evolution is an also-ran in the average person's belief system...mutants may be feared because they're different, but "they will replace my species" is way over the head of most people as something to worry about. Now, later actions of prominent mutants like Magneto could certainly make people fear mutants but not other superhumans, but....
Astro City - Again, there's a decent reason. Case after case of superheroes who are dangerous to be around, or who are freaky and hard to identify with, or prove themselves untrustworthy, etc. AC:DA #1 was all about establishing this pattern of reasons for people to hate heroes, at least for a while.
Actually, if the average man-on-the-street winds up remembering what things were like in House of M, it may wind up creating a reasonable explanation for mutant-animus among non-mutants in general. Even if this unlikelihood came to pass, though (doesn't spidey have a public ID in House-Vere?), I'm not sure that it's enough to excuse the work's other sins. Or even necessary, really.
The "feared and hated" shtick is a good source of conflict, separate and distinct from the usual supervillain smack down, when it is done right. Don't get me wrong: I am all about the super villain smack down. But I appreciate something different in my comics when I encounter it.
I agree that the theme, as played out in most X-Men comics, does not hold up to close scrutiny and gets downright old (especially when the writer *tells* the reader that the X-Men are "feared and hated" rather than *shows* the reader). However, these characters are all about tropes and the status quo: readers accept certain things as set in stone. This is one of those things.
There is, in my opinion, a simple reason why mutants face persecution and difficulty in some situations in the Marvel Universe and other superheroes do not--Magneto.
Magneto's pig-ignorant behavior has basically created most of what fear of mutants exists in the Marvel Universe. In that respect, he's rather like the situation of various Moslem terrorists--lots of Moslems take heat for the action of a handful of terrorists, even though it's not their fault.
But by basically putting forward his Mutant supremacy shtick, he's helped to create the very fear of mutants he thought would lead to their being crushed if he didn't press for mutant supremacy.
That, combined with the tendency of the main mutant heros to mostly fight other mutants instead of being publically seen saving the world very often, which tends to hamper them overcoming it.
I suppose the idea of a group of mutants organizing and/or teaming up might raise hackles in a way that mutants in the Avengers wouldn't.
The real-world analogy that comes to mind is that the X-Men are kind of like the Black Panthers going around with rifles and shotguns. The mutants in the Avengers are like African-Americans in the police. The former are rather more intimidating than the latter.
I agree that the "feared and hated" thing is getting a bit old. I think I can understand where people would like the Thing and super-types and dislike Beast and other mutants, though. To me it's kind of like how people will happily watch *Queer Eye* but freak out when gay guys move in next door. It's one thing when it's one superstar outrageous guy you're never likely to meet; it's another thing when it could be anyone you know, including neighbors and family members.
Funny how the Marvel universe can accept people being bitten by all sorts of radioactive critters, hit on the head by a cannister of radioactive material, or created as an android and given the memories of a character that was originally a villain (Unless I have completly fouled up my memories of the origin of "The Vision"), but let your parents accidently come in contact with a little radiation before you were born, endowing their offspring with super powers and Lo, you become the subject of a rabid witch hunt !
I totally disagree.
The reason humanity fears mutants, but not the Fantastic Four, has nothing to do with the individual merits of Beast vs the Thing. It has to do with the fear humanity has of being replaced. The arrival of mutants signals the death of humanity in the popular consciousness. There are multiple reasons why mutants were called "Children of the Atom." They were a metaphor for nuclear annihilation as well as prejudice.
This creates a profound fear: when will it occur? 1000 years from now? 200 years? Within my lifetime? Will it be natural? Humanity simply dies off leaving mutants the sole possessors of the planet? Or will it happen because someone like Magneto kills us all or enslaves us in work camps to serve our genetic superiors? What if I die when all is good and well, not my children or grandchildren? What world am I leaving them? Will Homo Superior civilization care anything at all about us? Or will they bulldoze down the Pyramids, the Kabaah at Mecca, the Statue of Liberty, or St Peter's when they build their brave new world? Will we even be given the dingity of being remembered?
This creates an existential crisis in regards to mutant heroes in a way other heroes don't. It doesn't help that many mutants, including some X-Men, seem to think that mutant's triumphal destiny is true anyway (I think future villains like Kang probably laugh at this fear of mutants humanity has now - to him the big "mutant menace" is a historical flare up like the Black Death - nasty for a while, but then goes away).
Few mutants seem to emphasize their common humanity with humans. Most who do seem to wind up in the Avengers (Scarlet Witch, Justice, Firestar and others) rather than the X-Men. I found Morrison's work particularly horrific because his portrayal of the X-Men changed from "accept us because we are human too," to "you must live with us out of some vague notion of multiculturalism - accept that we are different (implying better), not because we are the same."
Another reason why portraying fear of mutants is legitimate is how one can interpret the struggles between the mutant groups versus other ones. A normal guy can look at Avengers fighting the Masters of Evil, or Fantastic Four vs Frightful Four and know who's on our side. How do you do that with mutants? Who understands the scorecard? The whole switch from Brotherhood of "Evil" Mutants to Brotherhood of Mutants simply exacerbates that. It is very easy to interpret all the fighting between the various mutant groups as some sort of mutant civil war for supremacy as opposed to a good vs evil contest. At some point, one faction will win and unite the mutants. Then what? Does it matter who wins for humanity?
Sure the X-Men have done some good, but didn't they hang around Magneto for a while? Isn't Wolverine a psycho-killer (what type of "hero" stabs people and chops them up?)? Why was Sabretooth around them for a while? Didn't they attack the Hellfire Club (who of course is made up of all humans and represent the leaders of American business, politics, and society) a few years ago?
Furthermore, look at the name "X-Men" and what it might mean to people. While Stan Lee might have wrote that it stands for their "X-tra power," I think most of us interpret it as a big F-U to Magneto by Xavier by naming his group after himself. But no human knows this. Instead, most people would probably interpret it as X-Men = Ex-men. They are no longer human, and if they say they are no longer human than it falls into the same category as the whole Homo-Superior thing.
The X-Men comics has done such a good job of conditioning us to sympathize with the fear mutants live under and to interpret mankind as hateful, that we don't recognize how mankind lives under that same fear and feels that same hate.
In a very sad way, one can view the entire struggle of the X-Men and Magneto that while X-Men win the battles, Magento is the one defining the identity of the mutant community and controlling how humanity and mutants view each other. It shows us the limits of violence, and why characters like Wolverine actually don't help matters. Xavier, for all his good intentions, is not a practitioner of non-violence like MLK or Gandhi who could conceivably remind both mutants and normal men of their shared humanity and eventually play the blood sacrifice which all such teachers of peace inevitably pay.
It has to do with the fear humanity has of being replaced.
What fear of being replaced? They're being "replaced" by humans that look and talk and walk just like everyone else just with powers, not some strange new lifeform. It's like if people started being born without appendices or with fingernails that didn't need cutting. Oh no, we're being replaced!
What if Magneto kills and enslaves everyone should be no more of a worry than what if Dr. Doom kills and enslaves everyone. He should be feared because he wants to kill and enslave everyone and not because he's a mutant who wants to kill and enslave everyone.
Let's not forget that aside from the more abstract fear of species extinction (which Morrison brought to the forefront much clearer than Claremont's much weaker premise of anti-mutant prejudice), humans fear mutants because they all have superpowers. Sure, there are super-powered heroes and villains, but the Fantastic Four had to be bombarded with cosmic rays out in space; Spiderman had to be bitten by a radioactive spider. These are unique, oddball occurrences. Mutants are simply born, and born by the millions, so there's no particular reason for you to suspect that the people getting these powers are going to be either a tiny percentage of the population gifted through weird circumstance, or a handful of remarkable individuals inclined to use their abilities to help mankind. This is a world in which the maddening crowd suddenly can shoot lasers out from its eyes, and you can't. This is a fairly terrifying prospect. You're telling me you wouldn't want a sentinel or two?
No, I wouldn't want a sentinel or two because:
a) I could be the random peson who shoots lasers out of my eyes, and that would be cool
b) someone I know could be the random person who shoots lasers out of their eyes, and that would be cool
And if I never get to shoot lasers out of my eyes, that's fine too. It's sucks a little but it's not terribly different from not being able to run real fast or jump real high.
I know I've inadvertently sparked a good discussion when I read the comments and each one makes me think, "Yeah, that's a good point." :-)
Let me say in response to Greg, though, that I agree about the specific case of the X-Men and their tagline -- it *is* integral to what the book evolved into and no, I wouldn't go back and retroactively undo that even if I could. I also wouldn't want to be so concerned about taglines or nicknames that I went Byrne on it.
--Chris M.
And if I never get to shoot lasers out of my eyes, that's fine too. It's sucks a little but it's not terribly different from not being able to run real fast or jump real high.
I do think that superpowers are significantly different than athletic ability in that if I'm not as tall/fast/strong as Shaq, it means he can make a lot more money than me by playing professional basketball, while if I don't have the ability to control magnetism with my mind, it means that Magneto can drop a building on my head from half a mile away. Slight difference.
My point being: it's not so irrational for humans to want protection from mutants as some (say, Chris Claremont) would like to have you believe.
Yes Magneto could drop a building on my head. And my buddy Tom could teleport a bunch of us to the pool hall faster than we could drive. And my buddy Dick could use his wind powers to conjure up a nice breeze on a hot summer day. And my other buddy Harry could use his night vision to help change a tire in the dark.
I think the coolness factor of anybody being able to have superpowers without having to do anything for it would far, far outweigh any concern in a lot of the public's minds. Governments, corporations, power brokers ... yeah they'd want sentinels.
And my buddy Tom could teleport a bunch of us to the pool hall faster than we could drive. And my buddy Dick could use his wind powers to conjure up a nice breeze on a hot summer day. And my other buddy Harry could use his night vision to help change a tire in the dark.
The coolness factor of making friends with people with superpowers is nice, but it hinges on the notion of more people doing nice things with, say, mind control and optic blasts than would do bad things. This, I would suggest, is a rather naive notion. Power tends to corrupt, because it gives us the opportunity to do things and commit abuses we might not have previously even considered before (which is why we demand accountability from things like governments, corporations, and power brokers, and try to limit their power, as has been previously pointed out in this thread). Again, this problem is present with anybody with a superpower, but it becomes pervasive when applied to what is being represented as a massive step in evolution. It's not a matter of "Should I trust Captain America because he can beat the crap out of me?" but "Should I trust my neighbor now that he can suddenly read my mind and shoot acid from his mouth?"
Yes, you should trust your neighbor because if he pulls any crap your son with the lightning powers will fry him. It'd be no different than if he worked in a bank and had the access to delete your account if you pissed him off.
What if my son doesn't have lightning powers? What if I'm not living in "The Incredibles," where everybody seems to know a friendly superhero or two, but instead am stuck in, y'know, "X-Men," where it just so happens that I can just end up a human with a human family and human friends who get randomly squashed by the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants?
The answer then, it might seem, would be to call the authorities. Of course, the authorities are going to have their asses handed to them... unless they have something like sentinels.
(You might say that the authorities would send X-Factor or the Avengers to help me out, but X-Factor will be busy angsting over whatever's happened to Archangel and/or Cyclops this month, and the Avengers will be tied up with Kang, Loki and Ultron.)