It's been a year since Marvel has deemed Moon Girl the "smartest person"

[Crazy Diamond]

To be honest, I am not much of a fan of Moon Girl, though her intelligence is nothing to do with it. I just think she is a bit... unlikable? No, arrogant is the word I am more thinking off. I mean yeah, she is just a kid but still... I am also not that keen on how they portray her and Devils relationship. I dunno, she seems to just put up with him, rather then there being a real classic connection on the level of say... Rocket and Groot. I just feel sorry for Devil when I read the books! Thats just me though, I may not like the character all that much, but I love the message that Marvel do send out with her. I think she, along with the likes of Kamala and perhaps even America Chavez, are character Marvel are priming for success outside the comics.



I think the ultimate book for youngsters I would recommend is The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl, but yeah, I think Moon Girl would be a good book for them too.

I don't see how Moon Girl is any more 'arrogant' than most smart characters. She's not Barry Ween or Dexter for example from what I've seen of her.

From my experience when that is lobbed at a Black person it has a different connotation to it which shows up throughout this whole thread. Even in fiction apparently having a Black girl be the smartest is too much of a break from fantasy.

[Tiamatty]

Tony Stark has been written by Micheline, Warren Ellis, Fraction, Stan Lee, Mark Millar and a slew of others. He's been in stories that have tested him and explored various aspects of his personality and given him depth and nuance. Yeah, he had that before Bendis turned him into a poor MCU Rip-Off. He went past "arrogant guy with tech" and explored concepts such as transhumanism, alcoholism, mortality, political spectrums, national security and even faith in certain scenarios. In the 80s he was a fully realised character with flaws to offset his achievements. To imply that in all these years, having gone through so many different stages, he has the same ammount of depth as the protagonist of "Disney's Baby Einstein's: Comic Book Edition", with stories of 2 yearson her back, is objectively false. I prefer say, Ninjak as a character, but Spider Jerusalem is a better character, period.

It's not even about which character you prefer, or you don't. One character has been around for 6 decades, has been writtingby titans of the industry, and has had stories that wen't meant for an all-ages book. What's next? Lunella is as well-written as Morpheus from Sandman? Her book offers the same insight as Priest's Deathstroke? It pushes the envelope as much Ellis' Authority? It's of equal quality to Jodorowsky's Metabarons?

Yes, those stories exist. And they are completely goddamn irrelevant to my point. Depth is about quality, not quantity. Depth is about quality, not quantity. Depth is about quality, not quantity. I'll keep saying that until it sinks in. Depth is about quality, not quantity. Stark is written as 3-dimensional, complex, with a wide variety of virtues and vices, strengths and weaknesses, quirks and motivations. So is Lunella.

It is entirely possible for a character to have just as much depth in their very first appearance as a character who's been around for 50 years. Because both are written with the same focus on giving that character depth.

You are right that it's not a matter of preference. It doesn't matter whether you prefer Tony or Lunella. They have equal depth.

Sure. Riri is on par with someone with a masters in engineering, which awards 36,000 degrees per year. Those people are as smart as her. Nadia is as smart as someone with a PhD in chemical biology. That's still a lot of people. If Pym Particals and Iron Man armor were real, a number of people would be able to reverse engineer them if given the chance. Riri and Nadia didn't create anything new like Tony and Hank. Tony was kidnapped and in a cave when he invented the first armor with tech he managed to find. Without a template. Riri was copying Tony and was in a lab with tech she stole from MIT.

Riri and Nadia are definitely better than people with plain old degrees. They are super-geniuses. That's kinda the point. And they deserve to be in the room whenever there's a gathering of super-genius heroes.

Because the fact that those meetings were always 100% sausage-fests where women were just not allowed? It was wrong. It was terrible, and it was misogynistic. It was ahsolutely misogynistic. And it needs to end. Marvel needs to let women be scientist-adventurers, the way they let men be. Not just civilians or villains, but actual superheroes who can come up with scientific solutions to problems. Something Marvel did not have a single goddamn instance of for 50 FRIGGING YEARS.

So stop bitching now that Marvel's actually letting women be allowed to be smart while also knowing how to throw a punch.

Tiamatty, please do not forget to include Val (and her future self) to your lists.

She's been out-of-universe for a while. Now that she's coming back, you're right, it's only fair to include her.

Anyway it's hilarious to see with how much certainty people can talk about smartness while totally ignoring what is it and how it works. Intelligence is not knowledge, it's not wisdom, it's not experience. It's not something one earn or acquire, it's a quality one is born with. All the critics to the character that ignore that are totally meaningless. A 5 years old can be more intelligent than a 75 years old, because that's how intelligence works and how the whole world agree it works (just look at a dictionary, like the Oxford one, intelligence:The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills).

How people can discuss a matter while completely ignoring it is really beyond me.

Exactly! People keep equating "intelligence" with "accomplishments." Which is not how it works. There are Hawking-level geniuses who work as janitors. Some due to a lack of interest in doing more, most due to a lack of opportunity.

[Tiamatty]

I agree that female geniuses generally get the shaft (its the same problem with geniuses of colour) but I disagree that there weren't that many geniuses out there. We had a bunch that you forgot to mention like Moondragon, Monica Rambaeu, M, Dr Moira and Kavita Rao etc. Maybe you should read more comics huh?

Monica Rambeau isn't a scientist. Moira and Rao aren't superheroes. M basically never actually uses science to solve problems. Same with Moondragon, frankly - how often was she actually shown in a lab? How often was she the one to cure a disease or fix a machine or do whatever else to save the day?

So, come on. Let's do this. 5 examples, from prior to Secret Wars, or female characters who were geniuses, who routinely used science to solve problems, and who engaged in superheroics? I can come up with Kitty and Mockingbird. Maybe, maybe, Moondragon, once in a while, if we want to be generous. So who else? Who are Marvel's lady-adventurer-scientists?

I think plenty of people have made good points, but I have an honest question:

Would y'all recommend the book for my nieces? They are 7 and 6, and I want to start getting books for them because they're constantly asking me to read them my books. Of course, I can't because they contain lots of NSFW elements. Just because I might not like the book doesn't mean I want the character to go away.

Absolutely. It's definitely aimed at a younger audience. It's appropriate for 6 years old, and there's been plenty of letters of people sharing the book with girls that age. So, yeah, easy recommendation.

[Techno_Knight]

Yes, those stories exist. And they are completely goddamn irrelevant to my point. Depth is about quality, not quantity. Depth is about quality, not quantity. Depth is about quality, not quantity. I'll keep saying that until it sinks in. Depth is about quality, not quantity. Stark is written as 3-dimensional, complex, with a wide variety of virtues and vices, strengths and weaknesses, quirks and motivations. So is Lunella.

It is entirely possible for a character to have just as much depth in their very first appearance as a character who's been around for 50 years. Because both are written with the same focus on giving that character depth.

You are right that it's not a matter of preference. It doesn't matter whether you prefer Tony or Lunella. They have equal depth.

Yeah I'm uh... I'm gonna pass on this """debate""". It's basically arguing that someone like Don Draper, or Captain Flint, has the same depth as Jessica Jones. Or, more accurately, that a wine that's been preserved for decades, is the same as one bought from a super-market. It's just... wrong. Objectively wrong. You can go ahead and claim the internet victory but... I'm not doing this.

[ZuLuLu]

To be honest, I am not much of a fan of Moon Girl, though her intelligence is nothing to do with it. I just think she is a bit... unlikable? No, arrogant is the word I am more thinking off. I mean yeah, she is just a kid but still... I am also not that keen on how they portray her and Devils relationship. I dunno, she seems to just put up with him, rather then there being a real classic connection on the level of say... Rocket and Groot. I just feel sorry for Devil when I read the books! Thats just me though, I may not like the character all that much, but I love the message that Marvel do send out with her.

Even as someone who I like Moon girl I can understand not finding her likable, she is not a nice or sweet girl and at times can be down right rude and stand-offish to her friends ,parents and Devil Dinosaur, but I think those aspect of her personality are there to show her grow and development over time.

Lunella may have a superior intelligence but she is socially under developed, over the course of the book certain aspect of her personality have soften but people don't change over night ( I don't think she will ever be nice or sweet) also she clearly loves Devil and would do anything for him.

[Kurolegacy]

I don't see how Moon Girl is any more 'arrogant' than most smart characters. She's not Barry Ween or Dexter for example from what I've seen of her.

From my experience when that is lobbed at a Black person it has a different connotation to it which shows up throughout this whole thread. Even in fiction apparently having a Black girl be the smartest is too much of a break from fantasy.

See this is honestly the problem when it comes to discussion of these kinds of topics; even if at no point in a person's critiques of the character does it get mentioned or implied in the least, someone always jumps to skin color when it comes to defending the character. Honestly, as a black comic book reader, I find it kind of insulting that people treat characters of color like snowflakes and that the character can't be critiqued without someone being accused of thinking of their skin color. Hell I'm black and I'm definitely not a fan of Moon Girl's personality and find that Riri hasn't even come close to earning all the shilling that she gets in-universe when Bendis writes her. I'm not gonna defend a character from other people's opinions just because they share the same skin color as me, especially when they're being civil about it.

[Mary Jay]

See this is honestly the problem when it comes to discussion of these kinds of topics; even if at no point in a person's critiques of the character does it get mentioned or implied in the least, someone always jumps to skin color when it comes to defending the character. Honestly, as a black comic book reader, I find it kind of insulting that people treat characters of color like snowflakes and that the character can't be critiqued without someone being accused of thinking of their skin color. Hell I'm black and I'm definitely not a fan of Moon Girl's personality and find that Riri hasn't even come close to earning all the shilling that she gets in-universe when Bendis writes her. I'm not gonna defend a character from other people's opinions just because they share the same skin color as me, especially when they're being civil about it.

Thank you for this post. This is something that's been bugging me as well. Nowhere in the OP was a mention of Lunella's skin color or the fact that she's a girl (people should really stop saying "woman" when they defend Lunella's presence in Marvel books. She's a little girl, not a woman).

The core of the issue for me is that she's exactly that: a little girl. As an adult, I'm rarely interested in reading about children, especially not about children being better than adults, children having "an attitude" or children being smarter than everybody else. And I know a lot of readers feel the same. As a grown-a$$ woman, I don't see myself in her, I don't feel more represented because of her book, and I really don't think 9-year-old me would have been interested in her honestly (I was a lot more into Johnny Storm at the time )

I'm not saying she shouldn't exist. Little children like her, apparently, and that's fine. But I've always believed that such a line of books from Marvel should be kept separated from the more "adult" superhero books. Setting her as smarter than all the Marvel geniuses was bound to ruffle more than one feather, especially since you can't just put forward a brand new character and deem them right off the bat "the smartest" in the MU.

[Hizashi]

I think the ultimate book for youngsters I would recommend is The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl, but yeah, I think Moon Girl would be a good book for them too.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll give the books a look.

[Username taken]

The whole "most intelligent hero list" was stupid to begin with.

Comics leave a lot of things unanswered like strength levels and the likes. Creating a definitive rankings of characters like this creates problems especially when there's a problem and said "most intelligent hero" isn't involved. Not to mention it basically leads to every genius specializing in every field of science which is nonsense.

Moon girl being the most intelligent hero doesn't mean anything when she doesn't have the practical experience of a Dr Doom or Reed Richards, it just means she has a base intelligence higher than the aforementioned. Doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

[blanchett]

You are right that it's not a matter of preference. It doesn't matter whether you prefer Tony or Lunella. They have equal depth.

In no reality does a child have equal depth to an adult.

Marvel needs to let women be scientist-adventurers, the way they let men be. Not just civilians or villains, but actual superheroes who can come up with scientific solutions to problems. Something Marvel did not have a single goddamn instance of for 50 FRIGGING YEARS.

The character in my sig, Polaris is a geo-physicist. Shanna the She Devil is a zoologist. Emma Frost is a cyberneticist. Mockingbird is a biologist. I don't remember specifically her specialty but Heather Hudson from the Exiles was a doctor and I think a "gamma" scientist(huge aspect of character).

I do understand your frustration but lets not make out like Marvel has no female scientists. They do. Unfortunately they don't push that aspect of them enough. I remember asking either someone either Gillen, Brevoort or PAD about this and they said it becomes difficult when something gets ignored for so long to reintroduce it.

I think it was PAD because Polaris background in geophysics did get mentioned soon after in the book but I could be wrong.

[SignorMiracolo]

Yeah I'm uh... I'm gonna pass on this """debate""". It's basically arguing that someone like Don Draper, or Captain Flint, has the same depth as Jessica Jones. Or, more accurately, that a wine that's been preserved for decades, is the same as one bought from a super-market. It's just... wrong. Objectively wrong. You can go ahead and claim the internet victory but... I'm not doing this.

And what about the hundreds of mediocre or even horrible stories that have been written about Stark? With 60 years of stories, it happen. Do these stories make the character worst? Less believable? Less realistic? Less mature? Less intelligent? If you choose the number of stories published about a character as the parameter to judge his depth, shouldn't all the bad stories count too? Or maybe it's true that the number of stories doesn't count but just the quality?

[Techno_Knight]

And what about the hundreds of mediocre or even horrible stories that have been written about Stark? With 60 years of stories, it happen. Do these stories make the character worst? Less believable? Less realistic? Less mature? Less intelligent? If you choose the number of stories published about a character as the parameter to judge his depth, shouldn't all the bad stories count too? Or maybe it's true that the number of stories doesn't count but just the quality?

The point of comparing their "published lives" was that Stark, in 6 decades, has had stories written about him from titans of the industry. Which is something I explained in the next paragraph, really. Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned Morpheus from Sandman. Let us just analyze the "basis of the debate" here: A character, who has existed for 2 years, and is a little girl riding a dinosaur, starring in a book aimed at pre-schoolers, written by 2 no-names, is supposed to have the same depth as a character who's existed for 6 decades, is one of the company's most well-known figureheads, and has had old and modern classics helm his title. Do you realize how silly that sounds?

Lunella's character is straight out of a Saturday Morning Cartoon, and has tackled the issues of... "smart kid is not treated well by the evil meanies, even though said kid acts like an *******" and "muh alienation". Meanwhile Iron Man, in his long history, has tackled the themes of Substance Abuse, nationalism & national security, post-humanism, gun ownership, security vs freedom, IP protection, etc, etc, and has given us a protagonist who's gone through various situations and circumstances, and emerged a complete character. To say that both of these characters have the same depth is just... idiotic.

Either way, like I said above, I'm not waisting my time on something like this. You can go ahead and claim the internet victory, reply again and again, but... I'm done. This shouldn't even be up for questioning. Any sane person could see the ridiculousness of this whole premise.

[Mr MajestiK]

See this is honestly the problem when it comes to discussion of these kinds of topics; even if at no point in a person's critiques of the character does it get mentioned or implied in the least, someone always jumps to skin color when it comes to defending the character. Honestly, as a black comic book reader, I find it kind of insulting that people treat characters of color like snowflakes and that the character can't be critiqued without someone being accused of thinking of their skin color. Hell I'm black and I'm definitely not a fan of Moon Girl's personality and find that Riri hasn't even come close to earning all the shilling that she gets in-universe when Bendis writes her. I'm not gonna defend a character from other people's opinions just because they share the same skin color as me, especially when they're being civil about it.

It is a problem when one notices that threads of this nature are always framed in a manner to question the intelligence levels of characters like Lunella and T'Challa in contrast to the likes of Stark, Doom and Richards.

Terms like "arrogance" get thrown about quite liberally in relation to T'Challa and Lunella in a manner that rarely (if ever) is applied to Reed Richards by some readers/posters.

It's something I've noticed.

[blanchett]

It is a problem when one notices that threads of this nature are always framed in a manner to question the intelligence levels of characters like Lunella and T'Challa in contrast to the likes of Stark, Doom and Richards.

Terms like "arrogance" get thrown about quite liberally in relation to T'Challa and Lunella in a manner that rarely (if ever) is applied to Reed Richards by some readers/posters.

It's something I've noticed.

Can't disagree more I think the King of Wakanda has a hell of less egotism than Reed Richards, Tony Stark, Charles Xavier and Beast.

[16andCanadian]

Monica Rambeau isn't a scientist. Moira and Rao aren't superheroes. M basically never actually uses science to solve problems. Same with Moondragon, frankly - how often was she actually shown in a lab? How often was she the one to cure a disease or fix a machine or do whatever else to save the day?

So, come on. Let's do this. 5 examples, from prior to Secret Wars, or female characters who were geniuses, who routinely used science to solve problems, and who engaged in superheroics? I can come up with Kitty and Mockingbird. Maybe, maybe, Moondragon, once in a while, if we want to be generous. So who else? Who are Marvel's lady-adventurer-scientists?

Moira and Rao have been active in the field plenty of times tho. That being said I completely agree that female geniuses are underplayed as hell. All I am saying is that Marvel does have female geniuses they can expand on. Also if I recall Monica had been using super science under Ewing before Ultimates got canned.