Laura: X-23 Appreciation 2018

[healed1337]

Honestly, I find this debate over this retcon/reveal/whatever you want to call it more fascinating than the "Sarah was your mother" reveal itself.

[Ambaryerno]

Honestly, I find this debate over this retcon/reveal/whatever you want to call it more fascinating than the "Sarah was your mother" reveal itself.

The funny thing about the debate is that as retcons go this one glides in with just a bit of lube. It's certainly not having to be jammed in like some of the others have (let's start with Liu significantly undermining the importance of sparing Henry Sutter — which was the entire reason Sarah realized she could be saved — by introducing a COMPLETELY RANDOM kid she refused to kill, and implying there were others. Oh, and then there's how KYost effectively wiped out the entirety of Claremont's run with her in Uncanny with a half-hearted, "We totally faked our 'first meeting' for the rest of the X-Men. I mean have the events of those Uncanny issues ever been directly referenced since?).

[KurtW95]

Craig Kyle on Twitter a few hours ago:

“If I could #retcon any story from Laura's (#X23) @Marvel comic book past, it would be the one where she was depicted as an underage prostitute, but that's just me.”

[JmH Reborn]

Craig Kyle on Twitter a few hours ago:

“If I could #retcon any story from Laura's (#X23) @Marvel comic book past, it would be the one where she was depicted as an underage prostitute, but that's just me.”

That stupidity is better served by ignoring it all together tbh

To this day that disgust me. She was already fucked up mentally. No need to add that for shock value

[WebLurker]

No.

10char....

If I could insert images like I used to be able to, I'd be putting the Skeptical Hippo meme right here.

Had a question answered by Waiting for the Trade. Mine was the first of the evening for this week's Thursday Q&A!

While I wasn't really a believer in the "DNA donor" theory before, I think I agree with your contact there. I'm not bothered by it, albeit since I don't think it changes anything as far as her clone status is concerned (I seem to be a minority on that, but whatever).

[Gunther]

Honestly, I find this debate over this retcon/reveal/whatever you want to call it more fascinating than the "Sarah was your mother" reveal itself.

I agree with this. IMO the retcon doesn't matter at this time. Will it be used to shape Laura's narrative going forward, who knows. I wonder if it will be incorporated into why Laura changed her code name back to x-23

[Nazrel]

The funny thing about the debate is that as retcons go this one glides in with just a bit of lube. It's certainly not having to be jammed in like some of the others have (let's start with Liu significantly undermining the importance of sparing Henry Sutter — which was the entire reason Sarah realized she could be saved — by introducing a COMPLETELY RANDOM kid she refused to kill, and implying there were others. Oh, and then there's how KYost effectively wiped out the entirety of Claremont's run with her in Uncanny with a half-hearted, "We totally faked our 'first meeting' for the rest of the X-Men. I mean have the events of those Uncanny issues ever been directly referenced since?).

No, it's completely at odds with thrust, grain, and underling premise of her origin story.

I'll give Tamaki a chance to make this into something that works (or just erase it), but honestly I think this has killed my suspension of disbelief, and with it any ability to have investment in this character. Oh well, I have other hobbies.

[Ambaryerno]

I usually hate these sort of pithy responses, but I no longer have any choice.



I mean seriously, if you could survive what Bendis and Hopeless did to her, but THIS is where you draw the line? FFS.

[Nazrel]

I usually hate these sort of pithy responses, but I no longer have any choice.



I mean seriously, if you could survive what Bendis and Hopeless did to her, but THIS is where you draw the line? FFS.

Oh, those most definitely eroded away at my suspension of disbelief, I'd definitely have washed my hands with of the character with Hopeless if not for Taylor (ironic now).

I'd say this was the straw that broke the camels back, but this is more then a straw; the stuff they did was with the now, and I could hope it would be re-framed or be shoved under the rug. This? This %$#@'s up the foundation, not even as part of some plot, just an ill conceived "aww" moment.

Nothing makes sense, there is no character, there is no story, there is only a transparent lie; and I can't care about a transparent lie.

[Triniking1234]

I'm having fun laughing at all the outrage though.

[Ambaryerno]

I just recalled something from Innocence Lost:

When Sarah proposed making the female clone, she said DOUBLE the X. It was never actually stated they DUPLICATED the X. This isn't semantics; doubling and duplication aren't the same thing. While it's certainly been read that way since the book debuted, the language is nonspecific enough that it very much allows for Sarah pairing Logan's less-damaged X-chromosome with another X-chromosome from another genetic source (including her own).

TBH, this would also fix a glaring problem with the procedure; pairing two identical chromosomes would actually be VERY BAD for the health of the offspring for the same reason inbreeding leads to developmental problems and increased risk for genetic defects.

[Nazrel]

I just recalled something from Innocence Lost:

When Sarah proposed making the female clone, she said DOUBLE the X. It was never actually stated they DUPLICATED the X. This isn't semantics; doubling and duplication aren't the same thing. While it's certainly been read that way since the book debuted, the language is nonspecific enough that it very much allows for Sarah pairing Logan's less-damaged X-chromosome with another X-chromosome from another genetic source (including her own).

TBH, this would also fix a glaring problem with the procedure; pairing two identical chromosomes would actually be VERY BAD for the health of the offspring for the same reason inbreeding leads to developmental problems and increased risk for genetic defects.

Incorrect. The exact wording was "Duplicate the existing X chromosome", to repeat, comic science is not real world science, and if this is going to cause a problem it has not come up yet.

Stop reaching to try to make this work. The story was not ambiguous, the story was quite clear; quite clear and quite incompatible.

[Ambaryerno]

Incorrect. The exact wording was "Duplicate the existing X chromosome", to repeat, comic science is not real world science, and if this is going to cause a problem it has not come up yet.

Stop reaching to try to make this work. The story was not ambiguous, the story was quite clear; quite clear and quite incompatible.

And you're reaching to find any reason for it to NOT. You've been given plenty of plausible solutions for how this can work. You don't like it? Fine, that's up to you. But I'm not going to waste any more time debating it with you. It is what it is, and it's not even the biggest retcon she's ever been subjected to, but if you're going to pick nits over this one, you do that.

[KurtW95]

Incorrect. The exact wording was "Duplicate the existing X chromosome", to repeat, comic science is not real world science, and if this is going to cause a problem it has not come up yet.

Stop reaching to try to make this work. The story was not ambiguous, the story was quite clear; quite clear and quite incompatible.

And Laura’s creator seems to be pretty unhappy with the change. There’s no way he intended to make it plausible for a future “reveal.”

[Arsenal]

And Laura’s creator seems to be pretty unhappy with the change. There’s no way he intended to make it plausible for a future “reveal.”

If he didn't want to make it plausible for a future reveal, he either should of had them intend to make a female clone from the beginning or spend much more time showing exactly what Dr Kinnely did to create Laura.