Did Chris Claremont hate cyclops?

[gurkle]

Honest question here: favoritism must play a major role in deciding when editorial mandate is a justifiable excuse for the questionable actions of certain characters, right? Early when I joined I was highly critical of Scarlet Witch (I can’t say what thread exactly) but I was only focused on the damage she had done to the X-books and not with the damage that had been done to her or her fans. I’m sure Scott, Wanda, Tony, etc. aren’t the only characters to get hate, not by a long shot, but isn’t it funny when you think about it? Scott’s sins are relatable - so he’s the worst? I’m not saying anyone here thinks that, but how can the banality of Scott’s wrongs be in the same arena as Wanda’s or Tony’s multiversal genocide? I’m not bringing them up to excuse Scott’s behavior, it was still wrong. Do others really think that we Scott fans are happy that he has the stigma of how he treated Maddie or Jean hanging over him to this day? Or that we think he was right to treat them that way?

A lot of it probably depends on whether we think the story is any good or not. Fans don't always hate it when a character they like does something bad, if it seems logical or gives them an interesting role to play. Jean going Dark Phoenix seemed like a logical extension of what she had been going through during Claremont's run, and it gave her a memorable story with a memorable exit, so even people who hated to see her go bad don't necessarily feel it "ruined" her. Scott having a psychic affair with another telepath wasn't a nice thing to do but I thought it was an interesting story for him.

Then you get the stories where characters are made to behave so far out of character and with so little setup that it just seems obvious that the only reason they're acting that way is because the editors wanted a particular plot point to happen. Wanda's fans felt that way about "no more mutants" and with Scott leaving his wife and child, it was the same thing: it was wildly out of character, there was very little setup for it and only the barest attempt to justify it. So it really felt like something that only happened because Marvel wanted the Original 5 back together and as close as possible to their Silver Age status quo.

A lot of good stories are editorially mandated too, like Jean's death. The trick is making it seem logical enough that it doesn't feel like pure editorial mandate.

[Hizashi]

A lot of it probably depends on whether we think the story is any good or not. Fans don't always hate it when a character they like does something bad, if it seems logical or gives them an interesting role to play. Jean going Dark Phoenix seemed like a logical extension of what she had been going through during Claremont's run, and it gave her a memorable story with a memorable exit, so even people who hated to see her go bad don't necessarily feel it "ruined" her. Scott having a psychic affair with another telepath wasn't a nice thing to do but I thought it was an interesting story for him.

Then you get the stories where characters are made to behave so far out of character and with so little setup that it just seems obvious that the only reason they're acting that way is because the editors wanted a particular plot point to happen. Wanda's fans felt that way about "no more mutants" and with Scott leaving his wife and child, it was the same thing: it was wildly out of character, there was very little setup for it and only the barest attempt to justify it. So it really felt like something that only happened because Marvel wanted the Original 5 back together and as close as possible to their Silver Age status quo.

A lot of good stories are editorially mandated too, like Jean's death. The trick is making it seem logical enough that it doesn't feel like pure editorial mandate.

That’s a good point, I appreciate your response. We all draw the line regarding characterization at different points, right? There are Cyke fans who haven’t liked where he went post-Morrison, and those who prefer him post-Morrison, and those who enjoy him in pretty much any incarnation, so even amongst Cyke fans these questions aren’t clear cut.

[Papa Moai]

Gigolo cyclops, that's a new one ¬¬

I don't think gigolo is the right word. It's more of a case of Scott being one of those people who feel they have to "put out" in order to be liked.

[DDM]

Well his idea of Cyclops was retiring him and relegating him to cameos for holidays... So I'm glad editorial intervened, and if he's truly ruined forever he wouldn't have remained in publication for that long

Yes, because character growth and change is so awful. Aging out Scott and giving him a happier life was exactly what Claremont planned for everyone eventually, with the younger X-Men and New Mutants taking the reigns in time. Evolution is literally the theme of the X-Men but the tptb and also some misguided fans seem so hellbent on keeping it static.

Scott was kept in active use but the character was damaged for it. And worse another great character in Maddie was completely devalued and literally demonized to try and help lift some of that burden. Totally gross on both counts, totally not what Claremont wanted and totally worse than what he’d have likely done instead. Sure there’s been some good stories with Cyclops since, but who’s to say his retirement would’ve been permanent anyway as Claremont was gone just 5 years later. We still could’ve and probably would’ve had things like Morrison or Gillen’s arcs without turning Cyclops into a deatbeat manchild. And now he’s just dead hitler so some pyrrhic victory you got there.

[spirit2011]

Yes, because character growth and change is so awful. Aging out Scott and giving him a happier life was exactly what Claremont planned for everyone eventually, with the younger X-Men and New Mutants taking the reigns in time. Evolution is literally the theme of the X-Men but the tptb and also some misguided fans seem so hellbent on keeping it static.

Scott was kept in active use but the character was damaged for it. And worse another great character in Maddie was completely devalued and literally demonized to try and help lift some of that burden. Totally gross on both counts, totally not what Claremont wanted and totally worse than what he’d have likely done instead. Sure there’s been some good stories with Cyclops since, but who’s to say his retirement would’ve been permanent anyway as Claremont was gone just 5 years later. We still could’ve and probably would’ve had things like Morrison or Gillen’s arcs without turning Cyclops into a deatbeat manchild. And now he’s just dead hitler so some pyrrhic victory you got there.

Tptb just jumped the shark... having patience to move the character where they are to where ou want them to be was something lacking to X-office

I posted this in the Cyke thread but I think it's worth repeating here...



This is how Claremont envisioned Cyclops. There's a number of other examples of him taking this kind of moral stand, including with Charles.

Cyclops was not "weak". His morality was sacrificed on the altar of editorial and creative whim, first by Layton (at Shooter's behest) than again by Morrison and by a number of subsequent writers that desired a more divisive Cyclops. As informed fans we should be able to recognize the difference.

I often read posts around here suggesting that Scott somehow benefited from the editorially driven development he had during X-Factor, NXM, Astonishing and most of the Utopia\UXM vol 4 era. I wonder how anyone can think this considering that these books were ultimately responsible for robbing Scott of his son, true love, respect, position, friends, and legacy. That's quite a list of "benefits". Now I know what Rosenberg meant by that line "We were better off dead". I can see how it would have been better for Scott to die during Planet X alongside Jean, or even in her place. At least in that situation, when he comes back he would be coming back with some of his respect intact.

Cyclops fans are mad when Scott doesn't takes the spotlight, then when he takes they are mad too.

After all the crap he do, he still has many fans. Nad his more fanatics are from after Morrison wrote him.

[Hizashi]

Cyclops fans are mad when Scott doesn't takes the spotlight, then when he takes they are mad too.

This is hardly unique to Cyclops, every character has a vocal set of fans who are unhappy with how they’re being handled at some point. And it wasn’t until post-Morrison that Cyclops was truly being vilified in-universe, so of course you’re going to see a significantly stronger response from some of his fans. This is also not unique to Cyclops.

[Triniking1234]

Yes, Claremont hated Scott so much that he kept trying to hook him up with red-heads and gave him his own personal super-villain.


10 char

[CuteClops]

Well, we could say that Cyclops 'having left' Maddie is Jean Grey's fault.
If Jean hadn't come back, Scott wouldn't have left Maddie.

That is, we can blame Jean Grey. She's to blame, not Scott. Perhaps she should have remained dead.

[wano]

Yes, because character growth and change is so awful. Aging out Scott and giving him a happier life was exactly what Claremont planned for everyone eventually, with the younger X-Men and New Mutants taking the reigns in time. Evolution is literally the theme of the X-Men but the tptb and also some misguided fans seem so hellbent on keeping it static.

Scott was kept in active use but the character was damaged for it. And worse another great character in Maddie was completely devalued and literally demonized to try and help lift some of that burden. Totally gross on both counts, totally not what Claremont wanted and totally worse than what he’d have likely done instead. Sure there’s been some good stories with Cyclops since, but who’s to say his retirement would’ve been permanent anyway as Claremont was gone just 5 years later. We still could’ve and probably would’ve had things like Morrison or Gillen’s arcs without turning Cyclops into a deatbeat manchild. And now he’s just dead hitler so some pyrrhic victory you got there.

That's ridiculous, on all fronts. X-men theme is acceptance of those who are different, not evolution, if Claremont understood cyclops any better he'd realized his primary goal was to fight for Xavier's dream and everything else was secondary. His plan was to retire him permanently and leave no room for his return, he set up the story of him leaving maddie because he wrote him into a corner with no way out but ditching his family, other heroes with families such as Reed and sue lived in New York (super hero mecca) and could do all their super heroics and be parents at the same time. Claremont moved Cyclops to alaska with one child and a wife to keep him in Limbo unless he wanted him for a cameo, that's a testament of his knowledge of comics, didn't leave any room for his return, so of course someone was gonna step up and use cyclops and the rest of the O5 since they're available.

Scott wasn't damaged, it's part of his mistakes but it's rarely brought up except by haters that wanna justify his hate and clickbait articles by hack journalists wannabes. I'm not even mentioning the many Maddie retcons that came after, so don't call Cyclops damaged or I'll simply use the evil Maddie all along defense since all of them are canon, got it? Also I'm sure people like Maddie more as the devil queen than a housewife and nobody would've done much with her after Claremont ditched her to alaska, and she'd been eventually fridged by Jean inevitable return, so be glad the demon queen angle happened otherwise nobody would use her, there's nothing great about Maddie, with no goblin queen she'd just had been a footnote in Cyclops history same way as Lee Forrester.

Also Cyclops history and what he did is far more important than how to salty editorial that wanted to push their shitty Inhumans killed him, and he took all the Inhumans with them since their sales have tanked to oblivion along with their crappy tv series. So even if Cyke died I'm glad his enemies burned along with him, and since Disney bought fox that means he'll eventually appear in the MCU

[wano]

Yes, Claremont hated Scott so much that he kept trying to hook him up with red-heads and gave him his own personal super-villain.


10 char

Not fair, Cyclops can't tell they're redheads ¬¬

[Ulfhammer]

It occurred to me that Claremont may have married Scott off to Maddie so quickly party to disuade Shooter from bringing Jean back. I know he claims it was all done to retire Scott, but who retires at 20? Scott wasn't even in his prime yet.

Claremont must have suspected that Marvel would consider resurrecting Jean at some point. Shooters rule about her was already common knowledge among insiders and the only reason you make a rule like this is because you're open to bringing her back. Perhaps Claremont thought that if he eliminated Scott as the returning love interest for Jean it would make bringing her back less compelling. By making Maddie so much like Jean in a way he already had brought her back.

I was always surprised by the speed with which Claremont paired Scott and Maddie up and married them. Given his usual penchant for the long game it seemed OOC. If trying to protect the integrity of the DPS was even a factor in his motivation did that ever backfire.

[lurkerforyears]

If Claremont had married Scott to a brunette or a blonde it would have been harder to make him date Jean again. They surely would have killed his non-Jean-clone wife to let him be with Jean again, perhaps by the Marauders.

Claremont making him marry someone identical to Jean complicated everything, and makes Scott look a bit obsessed.

[Chaos Reigns]

I think people that do that never liked cyclops in first place and are looking for excuses to hate him, that simple. Claremont included, he doesn't like character being written in the way he doesn't want it, and cyclops is the living example of character development that grew beyond what Claremont or anyone would've believed, that's why he and other lovers of static characters hate him the most

That's silly. There are plenty of reasons for people to dislike a character that have nothing to do with what you just typed. I get that his fans don't like the reasons people dislike him but can't face how tragically damaged their fave really is. Cyclops was thrown out of a plane with only one working parachute and only survived because his powers activated. Unlike havok he was never raised by a family and was raised by a mad scientist that abused him for years. Then when he finally got away from the orphanage he got taken in by a criminal that he later killed before Xavier saved him. His back story is tragic and thinking he's a whole character after all that is a bit strange. He's damaged but if anything he's more inspiring because of his trauma not in denial of it.

[DDM]

That's ridiculous, on all fronts. X-men theme is acceptance of those who are different, not evolution, if Claremont understood cyclops any better he'd realized his primary goal was to fight for Xavier's dream and everything else was secondary. His plan was to retire him permanently and leave no room for his return, he set up the story of him leaving maddie because he wrote him into a corner with no way out but ditching his family, other heroes with families such as Reed and sue lived in New York (super hero mecca) and could do all their super heroics and be parents at the same time. Claremont moved Cyclops to alaska with one child and a wife to keep him in Limbo unless he wanted him for a cameo, that's a testament of his knowledge of comics, didn't leave any room for his return, so of course someone was gonna step up and use cyclops and the rest of the O5 since they're available.

Scott wasn't damaged, it's part of his mistakes but it's rarely brought up except by haters that wanna justify his hate and clickbait articles by hack journalists wannabes. I'm not even mentioning the many Maddie retcons that came after, so don't call Cyclops damaged or I'll simply use the evil Maddie all along defense since all of them are canon, got it? Also I'm sure people like Maddie more as the devil queen than a housewife and nobody would've done much with her after Claremont ditched her to alaska, and she'd been eventually fridged by Jean inevitable return, so be glad the demon queen angle happened otherwise nobody would use her, there's nothing great about Maddie, with no goblin queen she'd just had been a footnote in Cyclops history same way as Lee Forrester.

Also Cyclops history and what he did is far more important than how to salty editorial that wanted to push their shitty Inhumans killed him, and he took all the Inhumans with them since their sales have tanked to oblivion along with their crappy tv series. So even if Cyke died I'm glad his enemies burned along with him, and since Disney bought fox that means he'll eventually appear in the MCU

Evolution being the theme comes from Claremont himself, but sure he doesn’t understand Cyclops or the X-Men. And I’m the one peddling ridiculous arguments.

[Hizashi]

That's silly. There are plenty of reasons for people to dislike a character that have nothing to do with what you just typed. I get that his fans don't like the reasons people dislike him but can't face how tragically damaged their fave really is. Cyclops was thrown out of a plane with only one working parachute and only survived because his powers activated. Unlike havok he was never raised by a family and was raised by a mad scientist that abused him for years. Then when he finally got away from the orphanage he got taken in by a criminal that he later killed before Xavier saved him. His back story is tragic and thinking he's a whole character after all that is a bit strange. He's damaged but if anything he's more inspiring because of his trauma not in denial of it.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. I accept that Cyclops is a damaged individual, that he's made bad decisions, and I like him despite or maybe even because of that. I can't speak for wano, but I read his comment as being about Claremont's original vision for Cyclops being taken out of his hands, along with the X-Men in general. Of course, certain characters suffered when they were no longer under his supervision, but for those of us who have liked Cyke all along, it would've been difficult to swallow that he would only show up once or twice every other year. Yes, there are numerous characters who have been stranded in limbo, but that's out of my hands, I can only sympathize now that it's my turn.

At the end of the day, I don't think Claremont hated Scott - but I do think whatever bad blood was between him and Marvel affected his books going forward to some degree.

Evolution being the theme comes from Claremont himself, but sure he doesn’t understand Cyclops or the X-Men. And I’m the one peddling ridiculous arguments.

Claremont isn't the only person to ever write the X-Men. You (royal you, not specifically you) can believe that his run is the greatest run ever, and that it will never be surpassed, but that's beside the point. The issue with Cyclops, and this issue about evolution both stem from the same thing: Claremont was setting up themes and character work that could never truly be fulfilled. Because they are a part of the Marvel Universe, the X-Men can never truly be about evolution, and they can never truly fulfill that premise. We will never see integration in the X-books, that theme of evolution will simply become stagnant. Morrison, for all the faults of his run, laid down some truly great groundwork that could've moved the X-Men to a sustainable premise, that of the old versus young. It's broad enough that it encompasses many different themes, even the one about evolution.

For all of the good that Claremont did, he created a setup that can never be fulfilled and creators that are struggling to recapture the magic of his run are coming up short.