Secret Wars (2015) reading priority

[CentralPower]

The idea that Secret Wars was merging the 616 and the 1610 was supposed to have been reflected in Manhattan on Battleworld. BUT Bendis confused continuity in Battleworld Manhattan, having some characters there that couldn't be there because they were on the raft, such that the official line is now that this ream was composed of worlds similar to the 616 and the 1610 and not the realms themselves.

I sort of remember this now. I dismissed it as "it is Battleworld, it does not need to make perfect sense". Strange even said something similar in chapter 3 or 4, with Battleworld working better if one does not think too hard about it. (Aside from Spider-Man, who else was out of place?)

The official 'similar universes' line can now be found in the ANAD handbook because it is pretty obvious that they cant be the real ones, and that spoils the premise of the story.

The sourcebook also goes with the (cringe-inducing) ideas that Doom kidnapped Sue and the rest of the Fantastic Four, and altered their memories. That was likely the original intent. But, Hickman and Breevort (or maybe Alonso) realized the problem with it and stated that Sue's recounting of meeting Victor was the true story (even if it is contradicted on page). While the idea that Doom kidnapped Sue et al makes more sense, I understand why Marvel stepped back from it.

Marvel's recent sourcebooks have been lacking, so I have a hard time taking them as a final authority (especially when parts are contradicted by editorial fiat before even being published).

If you don't have Marvel Unlimited, I would recommend getting that to read these stories.

I am going for hardcopies only. (The largest screen I own in an old laptop. But, comics look better printed than on screens, unless the screen is exceptionally large.)

Fun story with amazing art. Like, the best art ever.

I have heard as much. Cannot find the damned thing locally though.

[jackolover]

I am not sure how "Civil War", "Renew Your Vows" and "1872" affirm the inherent value of the core 616 or Prime world though. ("Civil War" was a riff on, apology for, a controversial event arc. "Renew Your Vows" was a cutesy idea that ended up getting a series. And, "1872" was just amazing, Battleworld be damned.

To try answer your question, “Civil War” demonstrates the messy aftermath of never finding a resolution after 7 issues of the 616 CW. “1872” would be if the heroes emerged 90 years before the 616, in a period where there were no happy accidents with irradiated spiders or cosmic rays. Just like “1602” was another version of the Silver Age, but with super power happy accidents, 1872 shows how undynamic having “special” people in times of mediocrity, and, that they fit more spectacularly in the post-War period when rapid change, scary technology and Annihilation themes fit the heroes best.

Renew Your Vows was more stroking fandom who lamented that Peter and MJ wouldn’t become a family. Marvel pulled the rug out from under fan expectation that one day MJ got pregnant again, and we’d find out how Peter coped with that. RYV was a spectacular rendition of a Peter Parker who reigns in his natural instincts to help, when he becomes a father. Very sobering, but not a mission that Marvel could perpetuate with any longevity. That juxtaposes the 616 Spider-Man at the RYV Spider-Man and tells you why 616 is Prime - Marvel couldn’t sell a Spider-Man book where Peter lets the Vulture rob a bank.

[JKtheMac]

The sourcebook also goes with the (cringe-inducing) ideas that Doom kidnapped Sue and the rest of the Fantastic Four, and altered their memories. That was likely the original intent. But, Hickman and Breevort (or maybe Alonso) realized the problem with it and stated that Sue's recounting of meeting Victor was the true story (even if it is contradicted on page). While the idea that Doom kidnapped Sue et al makes more sense, I understand why Marvel stepped back from it.

We have discussed this before I am sure, and indeed I agree with you that this was the original intent. I actually don't think Hickman went along with it at all. I believe he veiled it when Brevoort overruled him, such that it is still possible to read it with that original meaning while the book also pays lip service to the editorial line. I just don't see the problem. I think this is one of those cases that the reader brings with them their own baggage. It is entirely possible to read the relationship between Doom and Sue as creepy but entirely non-sexual. I think it adds to the story and brings thematic weight to Doom's relationship with Reed, and the book would have been lessened if Hickman hadn't been allowed to leave an ambiguity in the story.

I am not using the handbook as a proof that the world was not the 1610 in Ultimate End, I am pointing out that this was the only way they could handle it. This became the editorial line. The issues were handwaved away. Lessening the impact of the story and neutering the ending of the event. I am not sure if it was Bendis's fault. The lineup in the raft always felt arbitrary and partly dictated by editorial, and Bendis may have got an earlier memo.

Bendis wasn't mired in the middle of a huge and complex workload like Hickman. He probably turned in his issues very early on.

[frizb]

Thor's and RYV were great. Thor's probably has the most relevant story tied to Secret Wars and stuff that's still happening in Marvel books

[CentralPower]

I have, but have yet to read, "Thors". Read "Renew Your Vows" when it first shipped.

To try answer your question, “Civil War” demonstrates the messy aftermath of never finding a resolution after 7 issues of the 616 CW. “1872” would be if the heroes emerged 90 years before the 616, in a period where there were no happy accidents with irradiated spiders or cosmic rays. Just like “1602” was another version of the Silver Age, but with super power happy accidents, 1872 shows how undynamic having “special” people in times of mediocrity, and, that they fit more spectacularly in the post-War period when rapid change, scary technology and Annihilation themes fit the heroes best.

The "Civil War" tie-in changed much from the original event. At the most basic level, it was more balanced in terms of assigning blame between Stark and Captain America. It used reasoning that many fans wanted ("skrulls made it worse") while emphasizing that the heroes were to blame for their actions. And, it actually had a cleaner end, with more changed states.

"1872" was about being a hero without Silver Age gimmicks. And, by the end, there were "happy accidents" involving gadgets (Iron Man) and patent medicine (the Hulk).

That juxtaposes the 616 Spider-Man at the RYV Spider-Man and tells you why 616 is Prime - Marvel couldn’t sell a Spider-Man book where Peter lets the Vulture rob a bank.

"Renew Your Vows" is one of three tie-ins to get a direct continuation (albeit with some minor tweaks) after "Secret Wars" and to last for more than a year. (Another is "Old Man Logan". And, that was arguably boosted by a then-upcoming movie. And, "A-Force" was essentially "bechdel Avengers", meaning it benefited from Marvel's diversity push.))

I believe he veiled it when Brevoort overruled him, such that it is still possible to read it with that original meaning while the book also pays lip service to the editorial line.

Hickman did not veil anything. I recall an interview where he specifically said that 616 Sue (et al) were "dead, dead, dead". His original intent may have been for the Sue (et al) of Battleworld to be the original(s), but he (correctly) bowed to Breevort. Marvel could not let Doctor Doom essentially be a rapist. A character like Doctor Light (a DC z-lister) is one thing. But, a character like Doctor Doom is quite another.

I think this is one of those cases that the reader brings with them their own baggage.

Readers need to leave their damned baggage at home. The comics are not about them.

In terms of the finished product, we are meant to assume (albeit with some charity) that the "how your father and I met" story recounted by Battleworld Sue is meant to be take at face value and that 616 Sue et al were retroactively saved by Molecule Man. In issue 8 (or 9?), the Maker specifically taunts Reed by saying that Battleworld Sue is not Reed's wife. And, when Thanos taunts Ben (in the main series and in "the Seige"), he makes no statement about Ben being from 616.

It is entirely possible to read the relationship between Doom and Sue as creepy but entirely non-sexual. I think it adds to the story and brings thematic weight to Doom's relationship with Reed, and the book would have been lessened if Hickman hadn't been allowed to leave an ambiguity in the story.

The only ambiguity is caused by Marvel editorial catching something too late to block it off entirely. Had Hickman caught it in his own draft, or if Breevort had caught it earlier, there would be no question about which Sue that Doom did what with.

The idea that Doom and Sue were married for the better part of a decade (not counting Battleworld's back-written history) and never slept together (regardless of how one defines "consent" in this case) is Silver Age idiocy. Even if we assume that Doom and Sue never slept together (or that Doom never allowed any romantic contact such as kissing or caressing), we would have to assume that he altered Sue's memories to assume they had such contact (as necessary to produce two children), and he "made" Sue okay with him being physically and emotionally distant for the better part of a decade.

Any scenario that assumes Battleworld Sue is regular 616 Sue makes Doom irreparably malignant. (Readers will forgive all manner of bad behavior from the the villains, but not a real world crime that has no rational justification.) Such a scenario also tarnishes Reed, who would have been giving Doom a much unwarranted break at the end of "Secret Wars".

"Secret Wars" probably would have read better if Doom had kidnapped 616 Sue et al. But, there is no way that Marvel could allow that for a major character like Doom. Marvel's editorial intent, which is the only thing that matters, is that Doom found an alternate Sue to marry and produce children with. (Still creepy, but not as bad.)

I am not sure if it was Bendis's fault. The lineup in the raft always felt arbitrary and partly dictated by editorial, and Bendis may have got an earlier memo.

"Battleworld" did not have to make sense. Just assume.....something something....time shift.....Doom plucked the pieces of 616 and Ultimate from just before "Secret Wars" #1....yadda yadda herpadepra.....it all works.

Quesada's policy of ignoring small mistakes and moving on is meant to save writers (and us) the trouble of worrying over minutia. As long as an individual run or series works, that should be enough.

I also tend to think that "Ultimate End" was based on a draft for an early plan by Marvel to combine Ultimate and 616. Bendis' "Age of Ultron" and related "What if...?" could have led nicely in to something that much resembled "Ultimate End". We know that Marvel was planning to dump most of the Ultimate line. All that mattered was finding a way to keep Miles and a few other things.

[JKtheMac]

I believe the Hickman quote was an official Marvel interview with one of the editors in tow. Of course he held the editorial line. That has nothing to do with the story. A story that only makes sense if Valeria is the real one.

[WebLurker]

Honestly, in a shared universe franchise, I think that total death of author applies, since there's no one single author and future developments often disprove the "word of God" statements from the author.

[CentralPower]

"Death of Author" is the most dishonest way to read anything. At the very least, if comics are not written with any intent, why bother reading them?

With comics, the writers are often using character that they do not own, and therefor have no right or mandate to change too much. The writers work for the publishers. While this may diminish the importance of the writer, it does not diminish the importance or intent of the editors.

In this case, the editors intent would be to preserve the viability of Doom. In order to keep the character usable, Doom cannot have kidnapped 616 (mainline Marvel) Sue et al.

A story that only makes sense if Valeria is the real one.

?



More related to the original topic, I am reading "Age of Apocalypse". I am really hoping that the drawn out monologue-style narration stops. I know that "Age of Apocalypse" is a 90s riff, the monologue is tedious.

[Vault]

Thanks. I am less worried about reading order than recommendations for priority. (Are there any "must-read" offerings that I may have missed?) At this point, 2+ years out, I am not reading anything in order.

Ah, sorry, the link was buried in the reading order: https://www.comicbookherald.com/what...series-ranked/

[WebLurker]

"Death of Author" is the most dishonest way to read anything. At the very least, if comics are not written with any intent, why bother reading them?

With comics, the writers are often using character that they do not own, and therefor have no right or mandate to change too much. The writers work for the publishers. While this may diminish the importance of the writer, it does not diminish the importance or intent of the editors.

In a shared universe, things can change, or the author's original intent can be altered (for example in Star Wars, the retcon of Darth Vader being Luke's father means that the original intent of A New Hope no longer works, or things like how the time-travel rules the writers assumed for the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies contradict the larger franchise and so must be discarded).

The reason I tend to advocate for death of author in a shared universe is that there's no single author of anything, ergo no final authority on the subject. (I think this's slightly different than analyzing authorial intent, by the way.)

[Iron Maiden]

"Death of Author" is the most dishonest way to read anything. At the very least, if comics are not written with any intent, why bother reading them?

With comics, the writers are often using character that they do not own, and therefor have no right or mandate to change too much. The writers work for the publishers. While this may diminish the importance of the writer, it does not diminish the importance or intent of the editors.

In this case, the editors intent would be to preserve the viability of Doom. In order to keep the character usable, Doom cannot have kidnapped 616 (mainline Marvel) Sue et al.

I agree with everything you've posted about why Royal Consort Susan can't be Reed's true Susan. I disagree with JKtheMac in regards to the assertion that Hickman was reluctantly persuaded to comply. Hickman is a Doom fan himself (he still tweets about him from time to time) and I just don't think he would have taken things in that direction. He set things up over a period of years and purposely orchestrated things so that there were fewer Dooms and fewer Reeds in the multiverse. The Council of Reeds were hunting down and eliminating as many Dooms as they could find.

As we saw, it wasn't just the "evil" Dooms either. "Nazi" Reed was curious about "his" Victor because he came up with a solution to a problem that he could not. So he vivisected him, taking a piece of his brain to graft on to his own. That Victor died in the process so it was cold-blooded murder.

The Reeds in turn were hunted down by the Mad Celestials. That made for a number of "unmatched" Susans out there and we saw Doom's consort had a Fantastic Four lead by her father, Dr. Storm.

[CentralPower]

Ah, sorry, the link was buried in the reading order: https://www.comicbookherald.com/what...series-ranked/

Thanks. I disagree with some of the reviews, but the list is a handy starting point. (It also helped me fill in a few missing spots on my list.)

In a shared universe, things can change, or the author's original intent can be altered (for example in Star Wars, the retcon of Darth Vader being Luke's father means that the original intent of A New Hope no longer works, or things like how the time-travel rules the writers assumed for the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies contradict the larger franchise and so must be discarded).

Retcons are still part of editorial intent. Intent can change. (One could also call it editorial fecklessness.) Guys like Quesada or Breevort are the final authority.

Hickman is a Doom fan himself (he still tweets about him from time to time) and I just don't think he would have taken things in that direction. He set things up over a period of years and purposely orchestrated things so that there were fewer Dooms and fewer Reeds in the multiverse.

Being a fan of a character would not rule out making the character reprehensible.

As far as Doom (relative to "Secret Wars"), I am guessing that the intent changed. Somebody probably meant for Doom to have kidnapped Sue et al. Then, somebody pointed out the full implications of that, so the plan changed.

[JKtheMac]

I really don't understand the impetuous that comic readers have to see the worst possible scenario in everything. I see Sue and her children on Battleworld under a mind control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, and I don't see a reprehensible Doom. Nothing about the situation suggests this. The reader has to bring extra information not actually present in the story to make him anything other than maintaining a pretence of being the head of a family that the reader knows can't be his.

Brevoort clearly saw things differently, but I think that was a bad call. I don't think Hickman was reluctant to tow the line, he is a pragmatist, but it is obvious that in the actual story he didn't tow the line because to do so would damage the thrust of his narrative. Instead he veiled it and made it ambiguous. Such that a surface reading suggests one thing but a deeper analysis exposes the impossibility of Sue's bedtime story and the idea she is some alternative version.

If he had towed the line he would have actually shown us the truth instead of crouching it as a story for a child. He wouldn't have had Valeria seem to recognise Reed, he wouldn't have had kids that are genetically Reed's running around that couldn't possible have been born on Battleworld.

[Abe]

My two cents...

IF (I insist : if... and I don't want to debate the reality of the story told or what is or isn't canon in it, dear Iron Maiden) Sue and the kids (along with the Future Foundation's ones) are the 616's one in Hickman's first version, then the story he would have wanted to told would have been imho :

- Reed fails both in saving the multiverse AND his family.
- Victor succeeds in saving both. Both very damaged btw : how many universes were obliterated? How the few survivors that remain could live with such a trauma? But he saved them (not kidnapped).

He did it with Stephen. Both agreed about the amnesia of every survivors. And I personally think that Stephen used his magic to do it - he did it with Cap under Hickman's pen (and Reed and the others agreed).

Finally he kept the family close to him : rivalry with Reed probably but also the will to take care of his goddaughter - something quite important under Hickman's pen. The godfather is now the god father.

And of the story : Reed wins. He will do better than Victor. And thanks him by restoring his face and giving him the opportunity for a new start, being better. He thanks him because he won against the beyond and then allowed Reed to do better and restore everything. In the published book it means the multiverse. In my version of Hickman's first story it would have meant the multiverse AND the family : in the end Reed thanks Victor for having saved his family...

Well... It's not the actual canon, for sure. But I could live with that story, because between soap operas and mythological tales, it's not a story that would make me scream of horror. We're so far away from the real world and real situations...

(JK, re-reading the first paragraph of your last post I wonder if our failure to read the worst scenario in that hypothetical version of the story is tied to the fact that we both live on the eastern side if the Atlantic ocean.)

[Iron Maiden]

I really don't understand the impetuous that comic readers have to see the worst possible scenario in everything. I see Sue and her children on Battleworld under a mind control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, and I don't see a reprehensible Doom. Nothing about the situation suggests this. The reader has to bring extra information not actually present in the story to make him anything other than maintaining a pretence of being the head of a family that the reader knows can't be his.

Brevoort clearly saw things differently, but I think that was a bad call. I don't think Hickman was reluctant to tow the line, he is a pragmatist, but it is obvious that in the actual story he didn't tow the line because to do so would damage the thrust of his narrative. Instead he veiled it and made it ambiguous. Such that a surface reading suggests one thing but a deeper analysis exposes the impossibility of Sue's bedtime story and the idea she is some alternative version.

If he had towed the line he would have actually shown us the truth instead of crouching it as a story for a child. He wouldn't have had Valeria seem to recognise Reed, he wouldn't have had kids that are genetically Reed's running around that couldn't possible have been born on Battleworld.

How is it impossible? Remember that Stephen tells Reed that eight years have passed on Battleworld when he releases them from the raft. If this were Franklin he would have been much older, at least in his teens. Val on the other hand has always been handled inconsistently by artists. Some had her the size of a toddler in the SW tie ins. Other times she's as tall as Franklin. Besides which, Tom Brevoort answered a fan question about the children and he said they are Doom's.



Hickman also says this in other interviews posted here, that the story of Royal Consort Susan is told in SW #6. These events had already happened by the time we make the jump from issues 1 to 2. Hickman is just using the bedtime story as a tool to recount how they met to the reader.

We all sometimes make our own head canon about various stories but you can't expect others to accept it especially when it goes against what's on the page and what those involved in the creation of the work have said about it.