Jean Grey/Marvel Girl/The Phoenix Appreciation

[shootthej]

I think the reverence for death in unending superhero sagas is dumb.

As a reader and writer, in a world of magic and super-science and time-travel, it's completely illogical and downright boring for death to be considered as "the ultimate."

"Oh look. Such and such died." should send characters on an epic quest to bring said character back or pose the question on the morality of bringing someone back to life, not result in some lame issue that shows four characters that were friends with the dead character crying on the cover. It's also lazy as heck.

Viewed in the context of the Morrison story:

Ok, so the fanboys wanted the "Cyclops ends it with Jean Grey because she isn't hot/cheesecake enough for a badass" story. Great, but the easiest way to get to that story was to kill JG off. It was super tidy, the saintly badass character doesn't make a morally gray choice and remains blameless and no one has to figure out what happens in JG's life post-break-up. The focus can easily go to the Badass and Cheesecake stat quo while aping a classic story for resonance, with no hassle. It's tidy.

The flip-side to this tidiness is that the opportunity is missed to tell the story of what happens to JG's life after she is forced to move on from Scott. Any possible stories in that area are taken off the table, which is, of course, intentional. The existence of Jeen is based around ignoring the end of Jean and Scott's relationship where Jean is concerned while also allowing Scott to be with Emma at the same time. So in this context, death (and it was a cheap death at that) was used to get to a new status-quo quickly without doing the leg-work.

At this point, when I see a character is about to be killed off, I just think "oh great, a big $$$ death-event" and then doze off on the idea.

There are so many more interesting ways to move a character away from the panels or put characters in new situations than just killing someone off.

[Lutecius]

Its tricky. In the most ideal of circumstances, she would have stayed dead after DPS, time would flow at a normal pace, and comics would continually move forward. Material would carry more weight and substance, so on so forth. The die is already cast on that issue though, and since we live in a revolving door of life and death in comics, I would prefer to read stories about my favorite character.

Agreed, with the caveat that on both occasions, the way she was brought back was incredibly lame and frustrating.

The notion that some deluded cosmic dupe (and not Jean herself) went crazy and “died” during the DPS did more damage to that story than simply bringing her back to life.
It really undermines the ideas of self-sacrifice or a mortal being corrupted by godlike powers. They’re reduced to a cosmic bird brain fart.

As for Teen Jean, even if we ignore how badly she was portrayed under Bendis, she’s simply not the Jean we’ve known. She doesn’t have her history or memories. She’s not the same age, so her relationships with the likes of Storm, not to mention Scott and Wolverine have completely different dynamics. She might as well be a different character and in my opinion, both Madelyne and Rachel were more interesting ersatzes.

[Narasinha]

The notion that some deluded cosmic dupe (and not Jean herself) went crazy and “died” during the DPS did more damage to that story than simply bringing her back to life. It really undermines the ideas of self-sacrifice

Only if you ignore SF themes by some of the best writers. Yes, it was not "her body" but it was Jean's personality/soul. You can choose to see this as a "mere copy" or, as the comics' author intended, as Jean's personality prevailing, even under those conditions, and sacrificing herself. Many SF authors write about the possibility of backuping someone's personality and enabling him/her to "live" in a virtual world or even of downloading him/her back into a new body or cyborg. The questions created by this kind of possibilities are a lot more complex than just "it's a copy, it's not the real person".

As for Teen Jean, even if we ignore how badly she was portrayed under Bendis, she’s simply not the Jean we’ve known. She doesn’t have her history or memories. She’s not the same age, so her relationships with the likes of Storm, not to mention Scott and Wolverine have completely different dynamics. She might as well be a different character and in my opinion, both Madelyne and Rachel were more interesting ersatzes.

Madelyne was nothing until they decided to bring Jean back and made Madelyne one of the central element in that story. She was just a random Jean's look-alike that was supposed to provide a way to retire Scott from the comics and would only have been mentioned every so often.

As for Jeen, yes, she isn't Jean. But she has the possibility of becoming her or, at least, becoming someone similar. She isn't Jean but she isn't a totaly new character either: She is interesting because of the "potential". Because we know, and the characters in the comics know, what she may become, what she may do. Other characters can't have the same relation with her as they had with adult Jean but they can't either ignore what they shared with her either. They can't help themselves to see her adult-self when they look at her. It's even more true for the characters that actualy already knew her. After, it's up to the authors to depict those relations or to totaly ignore the situation. But the potential for good stories is here.

[juan678]

Art by billy-donnelly
All-New, All-Different Young Jean Grey

[cwatz]

Agreed, with the caveat that on both occasions, the way she was brought back was incredibly lame and frustrating.

The notion that some deluded cosmic dupe (and not Jean herself) went crazy and “died” during the DPS did more damage to that story than simply bringing her back to life.
It really undermines the ideas of self-sacrifice or a mortal being corrupted by godlike powers. They’re reduced to a cosmic bird brain fart.

As for Teen Jean, even if we ignore how badly she was portrayed under Bendis, she’s simply not the Jean we’ve known. She doesn’t have her history or memories. She’s not the same age, so her relationships with the likes of Storm, not to mention Scott and Wolverine have completely different dynamics. She might as well be a different character and in my opinion, both Madelyne and Rachel were more interesting ersatzes.

I'm not even sure Marvel buys into the cosmic dupe anymore. When the first death is referenced, its always on the moon. Probably because of how much it hurts the story. Also perhaps having an epiphany and realizing they didn't need to wipe her hands clean. Not unlike Manhattan in Watchmen, viewing things from the perspective of a god is one of the interesting things in DPS. Like Claremont said, the sensation and hunger led to feeding off the sun. A planet nearby was a complete afterthought. How is what humans do on a daily basis any different? The vast majority of other life doesn't even pop on the radar. Do we need to make duplicates everytime Storm whips up a tornado and takes out a bees nest? Besides, did anyone consider that we are only supposed to care because it was a humanoid(ish) race on the planet? Double down on that perspective, because its really damn interesting to think about.

If nothing else, just headcannon it. When I read DPS, its certainly not from the perspective of post-retcon.

The history/memories is the biggest problem with Jeen, as just about anyone here will tell you. Telling people to care because its a 616 version, and actually being the 616 version are two different things. I wouldn't agree she was portrayed that poorly under Bendis. There were a few things like the second training issue that was a travesty, but most of it falls in the realm of acceptability. If long term some of these things persisted then there is cause for concern, but its the bullet we have to bite due to her youth.

Part of her bringing her back young was to provide a clean slate - for better or worse. That leaves room for her to grow and for them to continue to tell stories on that front. If you look at 616 Jean, there is a lot of material they could tackle, but in terms of moving her forward, she was already considered a bit of a Mary Sue. Its harder for a character to learn lessons, get better, blah blah blah.

[Gray Lensman]

The notion that some deluded cosmic dupe (and not Jean herself) went crazy and “died” during the DPS did more damage to that story than simply bringing her back to life.
It really undermines the ideas of self-sacrifice or a mortal being corrupted by godlike powers. They’re reduced to a cosmic bird brain fart.

Byrne's take on the retcon was that the human spirit was so great that even a copy could choose to make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of all. It's all in how you look at it.

[Portsian]

Madelyne was nothing until they decided to bring Jean back and made Madelyne one of the central element in that story. She was just a random Jean's look-alike that was supposed to provide a way to retire Scott from the comics and would only have been mentioned every so often.

As for Jeen, yes, she isn't Jean. But she has the possibility of becoming her or, at least, becoming someone similar. She isn't Jean but she isn't a totaly new character either: She is interesting because of the "potential". Because we know, and the characters in the comics know, what she may become, what she may do. Other characters can't have the same relation with her as they had with adult Jean but they can't either ignore what they shared with her either. They can't help themselves to see her adult-self when they look at her. It's even more true for the characters that actualy already knew her. After, it's up to the authors to depict those relations or to totaly ignore the situation. But the potential for good stories is here.

There was nothing random about Madelyne - she not only looked the same but had various memories / links to the Phoenix from early on, her memories, the plane crash etc. It was a way for Scott to move on from the X-Men, but brining Jean back changed everything and Scott started to become a douche bag. In fact Maddie turning evil in some ways was to justify / ameliorate Scott's treatment of her. I can remember in Inferno as Maddie was corrupted, the panel of her getting body parts was very moving; she was a victim of circumstances; people often see Jean as victim in terms of DP, etc, but Maddie was definatley corrupted by outside forces

Also in relation to Jeen and her potential _ I see where you are coming from, but what does "her potential" mean? - to "become" adult Jean, or through her experiences be more like her, or a person in her own right in which case she will never be Jean. And it is Jean I want to see in the comics. Also considering how slow comics continuity is, her 'potential' may take many many years.

In terms of Jeen's 'potential' with her psychic powers this ahs been explore to an extent but not in any way that really makes sense - so she 'uses' other's psychic aura or whatever. How does this affect others? Does it make them weak - is she vampiric / parasitic in this respect. I'd like to see what she does it she discovers her powers when she uses others psychic abilities affects them hurts them - it would bring a interesting moral dimension to her powers when to use her own or use others powers. I'd love to have seen that explored, otherwise the 'increase' in her powers just means nothing - just she's powerful but look, without the Phoenix! No we get the glow-ey Jeen, but it never seems to be with any finesse.

Id like to see Jeen develop, but she will never be Jean (that would be impossible) and now there is no past for the O5 to return to, so all the issues around the destruction of the timelines is a moot point.

[Narasinha]

I'm not even sure Marvel buys into the cosmic dupe anymore. When the first death is referenced, its always on the moon.

Yeah but it's just a simplification because they can't write a whole summary each time. Even in Morrison run (and many time just before), they clearly say that Jean and Phoenix (who died on the moon) weren't the same entity. Shi'ar killed her family, not because they feared they would turn into Phoenix but because they fear that something in Jean's genom may attract the PF. And everything later published about the PF just empathize that it's a separate entity.

[Narasinha]

There was nothing random about Madelyne - she not only looked the same but had various memories / links to the Phoenix from early on, her memories, the plane crash etc. It was a way for Scott to move on from the X-Men, but brining Jean back changed everything and Scott started to become a douche bag. In fact Maddie turning evil in some ways was to justify / ameliorate Scott's treatment of her. I can remember in Inferno as Maddie was corrupted, the panel of her getting body parts was very moving; she was a victim of circumstances; people often see Jean as victim in terms of DP, etc, but Maddie was definatley corrupted by outside forces

Everything you are refering to was writen after they decided to bring Jean back. Originaly, Madelyne had none of that. She was just a supporting Jean look-alike character that would only have made some cameo in the comic once in a while.

Madelyne, as a character, exist only because they made her part of Jean's return to the comic story.

Also in relation to Jeen and her potential _ I see where you are coming from, but what does "her potential" mean? - to "become" adult Jean, or through her experiences be more like her, or a person in her own right in which case she will never be Jean.

That's up to the authors. We don't know what they have planed.

Also considering how slow comics continuity is, her 'potential' may take many many years.

Again, that's up to the authors. Psylocke just poped back alive, where she died, without any explanation (for example). So let's stop pretend that the authors won't do whatever they want.

In terms of Jeen's 'potential' with her psychic powers this ahs been explore to an extent but not in any way that really makes sense - so she 'uses' other's psychic aura or whatever. How does this affect others? Does it make them weak - is she vampiric / parasitic in this respect. I'd like to see what she does it she discovers her powers when she uses others psychic abilities affects them hurts them - it would bring a interesting moral dimension to her powers when to use her own or use others powers. I'd love to have seen that explored, otherwise the 'increase' in her powers just means nothing - just she's powerful but look, without the Phoenix! No we get the glow-ey Jeen, but it never seems to be with any finesse.

Yes, some author could decide to make a story about Jeen's new powers. But Bendis did it for 2 reasons mostly:
1. The O5 all needed to have a power-level upgrade because the "average power level" of the current comic is a lot higher than it was in the 60'
2. Bendis wanted to show that Jeen doesn't need the Phoenix Force. He want to show that whatever happen to Jeen, good or bad, it will be purely her doing and not the one of an external entity. When adult Jean does something "spectacular", there is always the suspicion that she could do it because of the PF. Bendis wrote it black on white that Jeen can do it without the PF.

In a way, it's nearly a retcon of the original retcon (the cocoon): Jean doesn't need a cosmic entity. It's fully the potential of her own power.

Id like to see Jeen develop, but she will never be Jean (that would be impossible).

That's not impossible. Especialy not in a comic. But again, that depend what the authors want to do.

[cwatz]

Yeah but it's just a simplification because they can't write a whole summary each time. Even in Morrison run (and many time just before), they clearly say that Jean and Phoenix (who died on the moon) weren't the same entity. Shi'ar killed her family, not because they feared they would turn into Phoenix but because they fear that something in Jean's genom may attract the PF. And everything later published about the PF just empathize that it's a separate entity.

I might be misreading your statement, but it sounds like you are talking about Jean=Phoenix stuff. That isn't even on the table until post planet-x. I was talking specifically about DPS, and whether it is treated as Jean possessed by the Phoenix, or the Phoenix in doppelganger mode.

Though it could very easily be simplification as you say, its undoubtedly a cloudy issue. Even as recent as ToJG it is referred to as Jean. "One day I will be possessed by this Phoenix force. I will be nothing but a vessel for that horrible thing to murder and destroy". In other words all her, not a clone.

Hardly a conclusive official point of view for Marvel, but for all intents and purposes, DPS appears to be treated as Jean and not a clone these days.

[Narasinha]

I was talking specifically about DPS, and whether it is treated as Jean possessed by the Phoenix, or the Phoenix in doppelganger mode.

That's what I mean. Before Jean death in Morrison's run, they kept writing, in the comics, stuff like "But it's not you who died on the moon. It was the Phoenix".

Even as recent as ToJG it is referred to as Jean. "One day I will be possessed by this Phoenix force. I will be nothing but a vessel for that horrible thing to murder and destroy". In other words all her, not a clone.

Imho, that's a simplification. Bendis not wanting to complicate things even more or having to explain things in the comic. But, if you want an explanation in the comic, it's doubtfull that Jeen really make the distinction based only on Beast's memories and what the Shi'ar told her. Beast knows "intellectually" that it wasn't Jean's body that died on the moon but "emotionally" it was Jean.

[cwatz]

That's what I mean. Before Jean death in Morrison's run, they kept writing, in the comics, stuff like "But it's not you who died on the moon. It was the Phoenix".

Imho, that's a simplification. Bendis not wanting to complicate things even more or having to explain things in the comic. But, if you want an explanation in the comic, it's doubtfull that Jeen really make the distinction based only on Beast's memories and what the Shi'ar told her. Beast knows "intellectually" that it wasn't Jean's body that died on the moon but "emotionally" it was Jean.

Pre-Morrisons run is too recent for the change im talking about. Anything im talking about is after that.

After a little research, AVX Infinite 6 is very conclusive on what im talking about. Its Scott walking on the moon after he gets the Phoenix. I can't be bothered to type out the entire comic, but its all "possessed" "Jeans sacrifice" "Where Jean died" "Weapon that killed Jean" so on so forth. Main point being, its not like it was only the trial that im talking about. Its numerous times, and every time there isn't a mention of clone.

[Narasinha]

Pre-Morrisons run is too recent for the change im talking about. Anything im talking about is after that.

After a little research, AVX Infinite 6 is very conclusive on what im talking about. Its Scott walking on the moon after he gets the Phoenix. I can't be bothered to type out the entire comic, but its all "possessed" "Jeans sacrifice" "Where Jean died" "Weapon that killed Jean" so on so forth. Main point being, its not like it was only the trial that im talking about. Its numerous times, and every time there isn't a mention of clone.

Sure, you are free to read it that way. Imho, authors are not going to write stuff like "Scott: It's where the clone of my wife, which I believed was her at that time, died". That's just too cumbersome. As long as it doesn't have any importance or meaning in the story, there isn't any real point in arguing about it: it doesn't change anything.

Imho, if an author really want to retcon it, that will be because he has story to tell in which it will be important. Until then, it doesn't matter. And why would an author do such a retcon if it's not related at all to his story? Jean is dead. Jeen may never even go through those events and it doesn't change anything for the other characters.

Try to ask Marvel's folk what is their current position on this if that matter to you...

Edit: I think I am not really clear... You imply that Marvel has a definit "position" on that question. That, at one time, they decided to retcon the original retcon. What I am saying is that they wouldn't do such a retcon for no reason. They would do it if they needed it for a story or if they feel it's needed for a good reason. But with Jean dead, there isn't any story about her and it doesn't concern Jeen at all as she never lived those events.

[cwatz]

Edit: I think I am not really clear... You imply that Marvel has a definit "position" on that question. That, at one time, they decided to retcon the original retcon. What I am saying is that they wouldn't do such a retcon for no reason. They would do it if they needed it for a story or if they feel it's needed for a good reason. But with Jean dead, there isn't any story about her and it doesn't concern Jeen at all as she never lived those events.

A story with a purpose is more likely to be the cause of a retcon, but it doesn't have to be the case. For example, this conversation spawned from Lutecius saying how the retcon hurts DPS. Its not an unpopular opinion. Erasing the retcon to keep that purity intact has a purpose, even if its not at the heart of a new story.

Also we both agree that "simplifying" is a likely cause for the contradictions. Technically that could actually be reason enough to change it back. Cut out the convoluted nature of the retcon, and stick to Claremonts original story. Makes a lot of sense moving forward too. Generations will continue to read the classics. I doubt many people are running out there to see Jean get tugged out of a lake.

In the end I was never implying that they have a definitive position. More that the possibility exists for the official position to have changed, and as this points out, there is reasonable causes to do so.

[Narasinha]

It was not on that specific subject but Bendis gave his point of view on tumlr when someone complained about ignoring continuity or some past author's "veracity": He said that telling a good story was more important than trying to be accurate with everything that was wrote before.

In those cases, Bendis was not retconing things. He was just ignoring stuff that would have complicated his story or would have prevented him from doing the story he wanted to do. Imho, how some author made their characters speak about Jean's death is of the same kind: Not a willingness to retcon things with a purpose in mind. But just a simplification because that's not what their stories were about.