X-Men #3 [Hordeculture] - Review/Spoilers

[Havok83]

See, I don't see this from him; I just see him putting characters in places and doing/saying things. No development, just...they're there.

That and it’s hard to see any development with these characters when the roster changes every issue outside of Scott

[Kitty&Piotr<3]

Right, its almost 2020, who gets hung up on women having more then one partner or how they explore their sexuality?

Unless you're Jean in which case its still 1963 for u and u need a contingent of people to defend your chastity.

Why would she need someone to defend her chastity? She's either with one character or dead to ensure that she isn't with anyone besides that one character. She's the most chaste Marvel character by a longshot.

Even Groot gets more wood than Jean. Lmao

[SiegePerilous02]

Thankyou!! I feel like this can't be stressed enough! Claremont had a much better balance of longer, over-arching plots alongside characterisation; both worked hand-in-hand!

I love Claremont's original run overall, it still is and will probably always be the #1 X-run.

But he had a tendency to let plots run away from him and come up with weird ideas of his own.

[pkingdom]

X-Men was starved for new good world building more so then character development. Though just because the focus is on one thing, doesn't mean there is no character development. Its just subtle and in subtext. That being said Hickman takes liberties with his character to get them where he needs them to be for his story, but if the story is good enough you can get away with it.

See, I don't see this from him; I just see him putting characters in places and doing/saying things. No development, just...they're there.

That's kind of my problem. His writing wants characters to be in certain positions and mindsets, and he almost never takes steps to show how they actually got there. They are just sort of spouting and doing things because the plot says so. Why is everyone OK working with Sinister and Shaw? Because Xavier said so. Why are they implying some kind of polyamory thing going on? Just cause. Etc., etc.

If the overarching story appeals to you, then you might be OK with this. For me, the overarching story is just combining the worst aspects of Avatar, Star Trek Insurrection and Falconia from Berserk

[Ra-El]

I think that Fubar and I want character development and character relationships being developed instead of vague hints about a polyamori that doesn't suit these characters.

ignore isn't a option

For now, X-Men is the book that will do worldbuilding and introduce plots for the other x-books to deal with. Character driven stories will also take place in other titles, imo.
The Hordeculture stuff, probably is something that will be happening in Marauders, given Shaw and Emma involvement, just like the Arakko and the demon thing will move foward on Excalibur, given Apocalipse ties to that story.
Shaw and Emma will likely have more character centric stories on Marauders, considering all that is going on with Shaw's son, and I can see the Hordeculture becoming Emma's rivals.
All this to say that, Cyclops probably won't get any character centric plotlines, since Hickman will be using him for introduce new elementos to the mythos.

[spirit2011]

Why would she need someone to defend her chastity? She's either with one character or dead to ensure that she isn't with anyone besides that one character. She's the most chaste Marvel character by a longshot.

Even Groot gets more wood than Jean. Lmao

If only jean got all the wood to be called names hahah

Now be called names for a OOC development is not what I want

For now, X-Men is the book that will do worldbuilding and introduce plots for the other x-books to deal with. Character driven stories will also take place in other titles, imo.
The Hordeculture stuff, probably is something that will be happening in Marauders, given Shaw and Emma involvement, just like the Arakko and the demon thing will move foward on Excalibur, given Apocalipse ties to that story.
Shaw and Emma will likely have more character centric stories on Marauders, considering all that is going on with Shaw's son, and I can see the Hordeculture becoming Emma's rivals.
All this to say that, Cyclops probably won't get any character centric plotlines, since Hickman will be using him for introduce new elementos to the mythos.

i don't know why worldbuilding can't be done with some character development. Most of books do this kind of thing.
It's frustrating when Hickman already had 12 issues of setup on hoxpox

Why would you introduce plot points of other books? The books can work their own way of introduce problems and villains

[TheDeadSpace]

I don't have much to say about this issue. It didn't bore or interest me. It's an odd feeling.

[Park Slope Pixie]

If only jean got all the wood to be called names hahah

Now be called names for a OOC development is not what I want



i don't know why worldbuilding can't be done with some character development. Most of books do this kind of thing.
It's frustrating when Hickman already had 12 issues of setup on hoxpox

Why would you introduce plot points of other books? The books can work their own way of introduce problems and villains

Emma and Shaw got GREAT character development here. A+

[JKtheMac]

See, I don't see this from him; I just see him putting characters in places and doing/saying things. No development, just...they're there.

Again, what do you mean by ‘development’. In this issue for example a number of character beats are hit. Those are character moments. What they are not seeking to do is confront inner conflicts. Instead they are revealing of their current status and outlook. That is character development. The word comes from the idea of building character not changing character. These characters are well known to us. They don’t need much development. To claim there is no development is to ignore what is happening on the page, or to choose ones own narrow definition, where 80% of the issue is dedicated to character revealing beats.

[JKtheMac]

Thankyou!! I feel like this can't be stressed enough! Claremont had a much better balance of longer, over-arching plots alongside characterisation; both worked hand-in-hand!

That’s taste talking. Why compare an apple with an orange by claiming all fruit should contain segments or have a thick skin? Enjoy both for what they are. Seek to understand what the strengths of each are.

At this time of year, this approach always reminds me of ‘The Holly and the Ivy’. Why is Ivy even in that song? Just to make a claim that Holly is better? That’s not a comparison that’s an assertion.

There is a warped notion in the general understanding of writing and it is reflected in almost all definitions of what plot driven and character driven story actually is. Go read a random definition and you will in all probability be reading a definition written by someone that has no idea what plot driven story really is. They talk about it being a spectrum for example, which is nonsensical, they talk about genre fiction being plot driven which is an overgeneralised idea born of snobbery. Elevating the psychological novel over what they see as commercial writing. They talk about this being primarily a television concept, or something only writers need concern themselves with.

The actual definitions are clear and simple.

If the overall thrust of the story is about internal conflicts leading to character change or external conflicts that bring those internal conflicts into focus then it is a character driven story.

If the overall trust of the story is about external conflicts or any internal conflicts are being brought about by external forces then it is a plot driven story.

More contentiously, if the overall thrust of the story is about the world being a conflict riven place that the characters find themselves reacting to them it is Arena Driven. Some, like me think this one is just confused TV writers trying to convince themselves they are part of the higher literary form so that snobs can’t attack them for being genre fiction.

I would define Claremont as being in this Arena Driven space. He, like Lee before him wanted more character focus and squeezed a lot more character arcs into a primarily plot driven story. That is not the same thing as being Character driven. That’s just an emphasis on character. To many of us this makes for a less coherent story. Claremont was certainly good and very entertaining but he is not a great model of how to write comics for a writer who wants to tell a more pure plot driven story.

[Frobisher]

That and it’s hard to see any development with these characters when the roster changes every issue outside of Scott

That’s a fair criticism. I feel though that the role of this book will be more to quickly sketch out the lay of the land for the new Dawn

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

That’s taste talking. Why compare an apple with an orange by claiming all fruit should contain segments or have a thick skin? Enjoy both for what they are. Seek to understand what the strengths of each are.

At this time of year, this approach always reminds me of ‘The Holly and the Ivy’. Why is Ivy even in that song? Just to make a claim that Holly is better? That’s not a comparison that’s an assertion.

Depends on if you can even enjoy the other though. As it stands, I'm calling it an objective, critical observation: Claremont worked large, over-arching plot alongside characterisation, neither was sacrificed for the sake of future threads that may/may not have been picked up.

Hickman suffers from "This is gonna matter later" without putting much thought into the -now- and seems to relegate the more important points to data pages as opposed to his characters POV/reactions. As such, it becomes a much less immersive and less enjoyable experience.

[JKtheMac]

Depends on if you can even enjoy the other though. As it stands, I'm calling it an objective, critical observation: Claremont worked large, over-arching plot alongside characterisation, neither was sacrificed for the sake of future threads that may/may not have been picked up.

Calling something objective is not the same as identifying an objective thing. I wrote a lot more than what you quoted to try and clarify my point. In that I would claim that comics were just a as confused and incoherent on this whole idea as much network television was until it changed in the modern era.

Now, we are in an era where TV has mostly worked this out and comics are catching up. We will not see a return to a Claremont style comic, partly because of fashion but partly because of better educated writers who have a more coherent style which maintains the focus they want.

[JKtheMac]

Hickman suffers from "This is gonna matter later" without putting much thought into the -now- and seems to relegate the more important points to data pages as opposed to his characters POV/reactions. As such, it becomes a much less immersive and less enjoyable experience.

You are making a value judgment here. In doing so you are totally ignoring copious Hickman character development because it isn’t a character arc. He isn’t trying to write a character arc and valuing that thing and saying he isn’t doing it is not a criticism it’s an error of classification.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Calling something objective is not the same as identifying an objective thing. I wrote a lot more than what you quoted to try and clarify my point. In that I would claim that comics were just a as confused and incoherent on this whole idea as much network television was until it changed in the modern era.

Now, we are in an era where TV has mostly worked this out and comics are catching up. We will not see a return to a Claremont style comic, partly because of fashion but partly because of better educated writers who have a more coherent style which maintains the focus they want.

Hey, I quoted just what was there when I was; I deleted nothing. If you went back and edited it in after the fact, sorry mate but not my fault.

And I wasn't calling for a return to Claremont style comic artistry/writing; I was praising it for what it achieved and comparing it to what there appears to be a lack of currently. I would hope the stronger aspects of Claremont's style (i.e, strong characterisation worked alongside a coherent plot) wouldn't be something to go 'out of fashion,' but like you said, this is just taste.

Additionally, I argue that you don't have to sacrifice good characterisation for the sake of plot, as I've noticed from your edited response. Hickman has good ideas; the execution, however, seems to be lacking from the POV that's supposed to matter, i.e, the characters.