Avengers 20, we are at peak Aaron people!

[jwatson]

And i just wanted to make one last point because i've been reading immortal hulk and i the preview for the next issue mentions Jen and how all Gamma creatures after related well at least the main ones. And as we've seen from Immortal hulk all of them are turning into previous versions of themselves or uglier versions of themselves. Given the acclaiim for that story and given that it is in canon, wouldn't it stand to reason it makes no sense why Jenn would be the only Gamma powered being left "traditionally beautiful." when Gamma is becoming so much more in the MU. Out of all of them she seems to be doing the best so far.

[Triniking1234]

For now it seems Ewing isn't dragging Cho and Jennifer into his Green Door story probably because they never died.

[Biclopcicle]

For now it seems Ewing isn't dragging Cho and Jennifer into his Green Door story probably because they never died.

There's a brief mention in the previews for #20, but that's probably about it

[cranger]

Is it wrong to be asked to self examine yourself. I consider many people that are still making this point, even now, to be displaying trollish behaviour. It isn’t making the point that matters, it’s making the point over and over again, month after month, year after year, when essentially this was covered to the best of his ability in his fifth Jane issue. At it’s heart it is a joke, and it is couched in analogy. He doesn’t say “anyone saying this is a troll” he says something less pointed and wrapped up in a different joke. If you don’t feel you were personally being a troll why feel as if it was about you?

I have no doubt that Aaron thinks he is just taking a shot at these "trolls", however there are a lot of readers who are not in on the joke, and even if they are, Aaron is not good enough to make the nuance clear.

Well for starters I don’t think he is making the story about that at all, but even if he was the whole point is that this is an internal conflict so of course it wouldn’t work between two individuals. Regardless of whether I agree with what you believe the story to be about I am very wary of any statement that starts “you can’t just make your story about...” you categorically can make your story about anything you like as long as editorial agree.

When you cut off part of the sentence you lose the context. I never said you cannot make a story about something, I said you cannot make it believable when done the way Aaron tried. This is where Schism fell apart as well due to a similar shortcut.

[Tracks]

i liked the issue for she-hulk

[jwatson]

For now it seems Ewing isn't dragging Cho and Jennifer into his Green Door story probably because they never died.

Actually the preview alludes to Jen already going through the door. Bruce dad refers to her as that idiot child of his sister. And that none that passed through would remember.

And if I remember correctly Jen flatlined for a hit in civil war 2. Do she did technically die.

Or maybe it was fear itself. I'm not good with event names but after thaos beat her.

[JKtheMac]

I have no doubt that Aaron thinks he is just taking a shot at these "trolls", however there are a lot of readers who are not in on the joke, and even if they are, Aaron is not good enough to make the nuance clear.

So what? Nobody has the right to not be offended. I think Aaron is more than good enough, so that is entirely subjective.

When you cut off part of the sentence you lose the context. I never said you cannot make a story about something, I said you cannot make it believable when done the way Aaron tried. This is where Schism fell apart as well due to a similar shortcut.

Honestly I have no idea what you mean. You seem to be making a value judgment about Aaron that is purely your own and then generalising as if it is something much bigger. But I don't know what it is. What has Schism got to do with this?

[jwatson]

Also the the preview started Bruce father tried to separate the hulk from him to turn Bruce insto some kind of celestial devil and what do you know. The celestials empowered Jen for some huge battle. I smell event.

[cranger]

So what? Nobody has the right to not be offended. I think Aaron is more than good enough, so that is entirely subjective.

I never said anything about anyone's rights, I am not calling for a boycott, apology or firing. I am not even worried about it, other than sharing a couple parts of the story that I felt weakened it. It was simply a scene that I think works against the story as most jabs at criticism from the readership do. It didn't even have anything to do with She Hulk, and even though I get the joke and chuckled at it, I seriously wonder if Aaron is so defensive about it that he actually thinks no one can have that opinion and not be wrong.

Honestly I have no idea what you mean. You seem to be making a value judgment about Aaron that is purely your own and then generalising as if it is something much bigger. But I don't know what it is. What has Schism got to do with this?

Schism was a split in the X-Men. Aaron decided the split was basically going to come down to Cyclops wanting to run a training camp for child soldiers. The problem was this was never the case, or even if someone wants to make the argument that it was, it would follow that the X-Men has always been a training camp for child soldiers. Now, out of the blue, Cyclops is a monster and Wolverine the sole voice of reason. Instead of creating two strong directions for two strong flagship books, it essentially split the readership.

[JKtheMac]

Certainly my pull titles grow fewer by the year. I'll read almost anything Ewing writes and I'm eagerly awaiting Hickman's approach to the X-Men...and I want to see Aaron's run through to the end. But that's about it.

Maybe I should be more specific regarding retconning. There's retconning where you fill in details that were not there previously or you "update" some details (like Iron Man's origin now occuring in Iraq, etc). But changing essential components of a character or their history to fit that author's intended narrative is less cumbersome to the author than working within the existing framework.

Who exactly gets to define the difference? I can tell you it is not me and its not you. It is the editors and the writers. Nobody else. I am sure you are not setting yourself up as some kind of neutral arbiter based on your personal experience of comics. There is no such thing. Everyone reads every comic differently. I know I do from the many things I find myself in disagreement with on these forums.

There isn't even a consensus of the old guard, because I am part of that old guard. There is a loosely defined canonical idea of comics that some seem to insist upon. A core set of ideals and beliefs. A list of the best runs and the best eras. Even they vary depending upon how old people are or when they read things. Some of the acknowledged classics of the genre, while undoubtedly important, just don't do it for me. Some probably don't do it for you. Sometimes these things get challenged by the writers. Which ones get accepted by which readers doesn't bestow a value judgment upon the work. I like what Aaron is doing with his style of retcon. You don't. We don't get to change that. We only get to buy the products and express our views.

I have clipped your post, but you go on to describe your specific viewpoint. That viewpoint is unique. That is what makes this kind of debate very difficult. Just because a small group of self-selected people on a forum tend to agree on some things doesn't make them any more right than anyone else when it comes to notions of character or verisimilitude. Marvel and their writers have to make this stuff up every day for the foreseeable future, to maintain the potential of their IP and create new IP. They just want the books to sell, to make things viable, and to do that they have settled on an idea of modern relevance. This is a notion they came up with decades ago. It necessarily means characters, back stories, themes, meanings etc. will ALWAYS change. They have to or Marvel stagnates.

From my point of view, occasionally I watch it stagnate based on things that people are happy to buy or convince Marvel they want. Usually that doesn't last long. Marvel's strength is its mutability.

This is lazy. There are ways to stay relevant without basically doing soft reboots to the continuity. I don't like this idea that these characters are just some archetypes and each run is just an interpretation/reinterpretation by each author.

Here is the unadulterated, unromantic truth. We are talking about creativity within a sphere of commercial writing, designed to maintain IP over the long term. This has been the case since the nineties, when the law changed for the worse in the US and suddenly the value of the properties changed. To the point that Spider-Man as a brand is worth 3 Billion Dollars. This is not the ideal but it is true. To keep that brand relevant and valuable Spider-Man himself must maintain certain things and change other things, purely governed by the way the wider culture's values of these things inevitably changes.

Even in this somewhat cynical landscape, occasionally a work impacts some of us. Different things impact different people. Everyone's canon varies because they emphasise different things, and so those things that impact us will also be different. But at its heart we are in a commercial landscape where the actual floppies are relatively meaningless to the money men. Don't like the sound of that. Don't read them.

[JKtheMac]

I never said anything about anyone's rights, I am not calling for a boycott, apology or firing. I am not even worried about it, other than sharing a couple parts of the story that I felt weakened it. It was simply a scene that I think works against the story as most jabs at criticism from the readership do. It didn't even have anything to do with She Hulk, and even though I get the joke and chuckled at it, I seriously wonder if Aaron is so defensive about it that he actually thinks no one can have that opinion and not be wrong.

Well that sounds reasonable. I would be very wary of trying to assert exactly why a writer inserts a specific joke though. Just because some may consider it near the mark, doesn't mean it 'weakens' anything. It just means you are more sensitive to it and perhaps ascribe a different motive to it than I do.

I went through this with the Titania incident. I found it passingly funny, but I worried about it. I wondered if it cut a little close to the bone. Then I read about the context of that. That Aaron was being bombarded with outright sexist attacks about choosing a woman to tell his story. He was both baffled and disappointed by the behaviour of people he considered to be part of his tribe. He chose Jane purely out of her being the most suitable for his tale after going though a list of candidates with his editor - not at all because she was a woman - and he was accused of being somehow too feminist, and having some kind of agenda that he hadn't even conceived of. In that context I can completely understand why he wrote that scene, and why it reads so artificially. He was literally mocking the idea. Most people didn't see this. They just saw a blunt attack. So did I until I understood the context. Then I stopped worrying about it.

Schism was a split in the X-Men. Aaron decided the split was basically going to come down to Cyclops wanting to run a training camp for child soldiers. The problem was this was never the case, or even if someone wants to make the argument that it was, it would follow that the X-Men has always been a training camp for child soldiers. Now, out of the blue, Cyclops is a monster and Wolverine the sole voice of reason. Instead of creating two strong directions for two strong flagship books, it essentially split the readership.

No I have read the story. I just don't see why it came up in this context. You seem to be worried that anything controversial will potentially divide us. Look around you. Everything divides us.

[JKtheMac]

Also the the preview started Bruce father tried to separate the hulk from him to turn Bruce insto some kind of celestial devil and what do you know. The celestials empowered Jen for some huge battle. I smell event.

Indeed. The idea that somehow these two writers have different approaches or different agendas kind of ignores the fact they probably admire each other's work and are almost certainly planning things in the wider editorial sphere. Creators sometimes get cast by fans as warring heroes, presumably because they write about warring heroes.

[JKtheMac]

i liked the issue for she-hulk

I cant help but comment on the fact that this was your six hundred and sixty sixth post. It looks so innocent but there must be a hidden motive. It must mean something.

[Ptrvc]

The worst thing about Aaron's comments is that Bruce has had to suffer through physical and sexual degradation because of his condition.

Everything from attempted rape, to gene theft (Thundra), dismemberment and torture etc. etc.

Maybe Aaron's not aware of this, but Jennifer should be. She's under some sort of delusion that being big and strong means that you never have to deal with that ****.

But ifo can happen to Terry Crews it can happen to anyone.

Particularly if their say a mentally ill transient on the outskirts of society.

[jwatson]

The worst thing about Aaron's comments is that Bruce has had to suffer through physical and sexual degradation because of his condition.

Everything from attempted rape, to gene theft (Thundra), dismemberment and torture etc. etc.

Maybe Aaron's not aware of this, but Jennifer should be. She's under some sort of delusion that being big and strong means that you never have to deal with that ****.

But ifo can happen to Terry Crews it can happen to anyone.

Particularly if their say a mentally ill transient on the outskirts of society.

True but Bruce set the tone here. Why did he need to tell Jen doesn't sound so bad but when she did the same he stormed off. Just because he thinks she has good doesn't mean she feel she does. If Jen had told Bruce well at least your notnweak or at least your not this she expected to take into account the totality of his experiences but he doesn't have to do the same? If my sister kept hooking up with jerks and I couldn't get anybody and she was like why do I keep hooking up with abusive jerks and I was like well at least you got somebody. Her experience is objectively far worse than mine but i am upset because I can't even get a douche. She has eveylry right to be like "really dude." Instead I would be like "yeah that sucks" and try to offer some actual advice."/