Wanda's “unforgivable” crime?!

[Huntsman Spider]

Spider-man once worked for Jackal when they were trying to murder the entire human race and replace it with clones. Spider-man attempting genocide isn't even a random bit of trivia to most people.

Well I learned something new today. He shouldn’t get away with hitting MJ or OMD.

Fair enough. One could write them all off as just very bad writing, but at the same time, those are horrible enough that he ought not to get a pass on them. Funny enough, The Clone Conspiracy revolved around a rehash of that plot, but with the new Jackal (Ben Reilly, formerly Scarlet Spider and Spider-Man) claiming he was going to "reanimate" everyone so that nobody would die anymore, the ultimate twisted extreme of Peter's "no one dies!" mantra. That being said, the one thing saving Spider-Man from being permanently tarnished by those actions was that as soon as the Clone Saga ended, Marvel bent over backwards to either ignore or whitewash that entire period. Relatively fortunate for me as a longtime fan of Spider-Man, though yeah, we probably should get back (and stay) on topic here.

[XPac]

Fair enough. One could write them all off as just very bad writing, but at the same time, those are horrible enough that he ought not to get a pass on them. Funny enough, The Clone Conspiracy revolved around a rehash of that plot, but with the new Jackal (Ben Reilly, formerly Scarlet Spider and Spider-Man) claiming he was going to "reanimate" everyone so that nobody would die anymore, the ultimate twisted extreme of Peter's "no one dies!" mantra. That being said, the one thing saving Spider-Man from being permanently tarnished by those actions was that as soon as the Clone Saga ended, Marvel bent over backwards to either ignore or whitewash that entire period. Relatively fortunate for me as a longtime fan of Spider-Man, though yeah, we probably should get back (and stay) on topic here.

I think the take away from that is a character can be forgiven if that's the direction marvel wants to go with it.

Obviously there are things like mind control or possession or whatever which grant a character a "get out of jail free" card IF marvel wants an easy way to sweep it under the carpet.

But as we've seen with Bishop, you don't even need that. That guy murdered billions, and for the most part no one on the X-Men (except maybe Hope) gives a damn. The X writers simply wanted to move past it, so that's what happened. And if the X writers ever wanted to move past Wanda, the same would happen there. The only reason they haven't is because the X writers aren't done with her yet. And maybe they never will be.. who knows.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Ultimately, it seems every poster here agrees that House of M is a bad story, and that Wanda depowering mutants is a bad thing.

What fans of Wanda and others seem to ask for is that this be swept under the rug citing other stuff, and that she still be treated as a hero regardless of it.

Okay, that's a fair ask. But again, people need to realize that Wanda's actions in House of M is an event of great significance in Marvel continuity while that's not the case with other characters whose misdeeds are cited here, not for the most part.

[TheCape]

Fair enough. One could write them all off as just very bad writing, but at the same time, those are horrible enough that he ought not to get a pass on them. Funny enough, The Clone Conspiracy revolved around a rehash of that plot, but with the new Jackal (Ben Reilly, formerly Scarlet Spider and Spider-Man) claiming he was going to "reanimate" everyone so that nobody would die anymore, the ultimate twisted extreme of Peter's "no one dies!" mantra. That being said, the one thing saving Spider-Man from being permanently tarnished by those actions was that as soon as the Clone Saga ended, Marvel bent over backwards to either ignore or whitewash that entire period. Relatively fortunate for me as a longtime fan of Spider-Man, though yeah, we probably should get back (and stay) on topic here.

Eh, as horrible as Maximum Clonage was, Peter didn't stay long on his side he came back to his senses before he could do any real damage, so is not something i held agaisnt him.

[Ichijinijisanji]

To reiterate, Wanda is on trial here in this thread. Trying to bring in other characters and publication stuff isn't going to bail her out.

since this is narrative fiction, precedents on how other characters are treated for similar things morally are fair, especially since the premise of the thread is drawing comparisons

[XPac]

Ultimately, it seems every poster here agrees that House of M is a bad story, and that Wanda depowering mutants is a bad thing.

What fans of Wanda and others seem to ask for is that this be swept under the rug citing other stuff, and that she still be treated as a hero regardless of it.

Okay, that's a fair ask. But again, people need to realize that Wanda's actions in House of M is an event of great significance in Marvel continuity while that's not the case with other characters whose misdeeds are cited here, not for the most part.

And honestly it's not even that big of a deal. It's really only in the occasional X-Men story where they drag her through the mud. Everywhere else she's still treated as the hero she deserves to be, so it's fine. Maybe the X books will one day get it out of their system and maybe they won't, but either way it's pretty easy to ignore if one isn't interested.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

since this is narrative fiction, precedents on how other characters are treated for similar things are fair, especially since the premise of the thread is drawing comparisons

The precedent of a character's action marking watershed in the continuity of another team and title is very thin on the ground. The issue isn't that Wanda had a bad story or an embarrassing moment. Many characters have had that because of writers misreading the story, editorial incompetence and so on.

House of M isn't a case of editorial incompetence, i.e. the editors didn't pay attention, didn't know what they were doing, and so on. You can argue against execution by all means, but the story was conceived and executed with the intent of Wanda Maximoff directly causing the mass sterilization of mutantkind. There's nothing extenuating there unlike Spider-Man in the Clone Saga.

[Huntsman Spider]

I think the take away from that is a character can be forgiven if that's the direction marvel wants to go with it.

Obviously there are things like mind control or possession or whatever which grant a character a "get out of jail free" card IF marvel wants an easy way to sweep it under the carpet.

But as we've seen with Bishop, you don't even need that. That guy murdered billions, and for the most part no one on the X-Men (except maybe Hope) gives a damn. The X writers simply wanted to move past it, so that's what happened. And if the X writers ever wanted to move past Wanda, the same would happen there. The only reason they haven't is because the X writers aren't done with her yet. And maybe they never will be.. who knows.

Interesting point you raise with Bishop, though given that his actions were decried as extremely bad character writing for him . . . well, the thing, I think, is that writers get so hellbent on making an impact with the stories they tell, they forget that in a shared universe, some restraint is needed for the characters to remain viable with the readership. If one paints or depicts a previously heroic character as a stark raving genocidal maniac willing to end or otherwise destroy countless lives out of rage, hate, spite, or revenge, that shouldn't just fly by editorial if they want or intend the character to still be usable as a hero in the future. Hell, look at the Civil War that followed House of M/Decimation; the likes of Tony Stark and Carol Danvers were party to some pretty awful deeds against their erstwhile comrades, to say the least, and yet Marvel made the effort to redeem their characters or at least justify continuing to depict and portray them as heroes despite the devastation left in the wake of their actions. Why? Because editorial saw them as still valuable, at least compared to Bishop and Wanda at that time. I think that's really the point in the end --- which characters are seen as valuable or even indispensable to the Marvel brand, and which ones aren't, determines who gets a redemption or absolution story and who doesn't.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

And honestly it's not even that big of a deal. It's really only in the occasional X-Men story where they drag her through the mud. Everywhere else she's still treated as the hero she deserves to be, so it's fine. Maybe the X books will one day get it out of their system and maybe they won't, but either way it's pretty easy to ignore if one isn't interested.

If you are dealing with an epic status-quo like Hickman's run which is dealing with all mutantkind and not a team of set X-Men and other mutants, then you can make that point. But if you have to deal with mutants as a community, it's not believable to expect them to not have words to say about the person who took their abilities away from then without their consent, without knowledge of them, for nothing they did to her.

[XPac]

If you are dealing with an epic status-quo like Hickman's run which is dealing with all mutantkind and not a team of set X-Men and other mutants, then you can make that point. But if you have to deal with mutants as a community, it's not believable to expect them to not have words to say about the person who took their abilities away from then without their consent, without knowledge of them, for nothing they did to her.

Again, she was possessed. When you're a super hero these things happen. They've all been there.

Not that it's not valid for X writers to continue making an issue out of it if that's what they want... but there's also a built in "get out of jail" card anytime they decide they are finally ready to move on like everyone else has. But it' up to them either way.

[Ichijinijisanji]

The precedent of a character's action marking watershed in the continuity of another team and title is very thin on the ground. The issue isn't that Wanda had a bad story or an embarrassing moment. Many characters have had that because of writers misreading the story, editorial incompetence and so on.

House of M isn't a case of editorial incompetence, i.e. the editors didn't pay attention, didn't know what they were doing, and so on. You can argue against execution by all means, but the story was conceived and executed with the intent of Wanda Maximoff directly causing the mass sterilization of mutantkind. There's nothing extenuating there unlike Spider-Man in the Clone Saga.

Sure, I can see the sheer amount of effect it had on x-men with multiple stories stemming out of it and it just defining its narrative for years.
But her treatment within these stories is the thing. The initial version, she just.... went insane. It didn't seem like she could control it. Like if a tumor grows in your head. With that version atleast I can exonerate her and I felt like others should've too (or atleast could've before children's crusade). Bringing up wanda to blame vs bringing her up as the explanation is different.

For example, with pym, there was a specific narrative framing during secret empire where he was posed as inspiring to scott lang that despite his mistakes he got back on his feet, while tony bringing it up was framed as the bad guy. So you can bring it up, but still frame him as a hero.

Hypocrisy can also be grating. I mean, Beast recently caused a country to go extinct. The HOM story was executed one way, yes, but we can also talk about how effectively them bringing it up as a moral blame works.

[JTHM]

No More WandavsX Threads.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Again, she was possessed.

It was never stated clearly she was. The Children's Crusade left plenty of stuff ambiguous but the idea that Doom was behind it didn't take obviously.

And in Empyre:X-Men, Wanda clearly feels guilt and responsibility for her actions.

So "she was possessed" has never been the official response.

Hypocrisy can also be grating.

So is "whataboutism".

I mean, Beast recently caused a country to go extinct.

Not really. His actions was a major mistake that nearly led it to happen but Jean stopped it in time, or that's what it seemed like anyway.

[Frontier]

It was never stated clearly she was. The Children's Crusade left plenty of stuff ambiguous but the idea that Doom was behind it didn't take obviously.

And in Empyre:X-Men, Wanda clearly feels guilt and responsibility for her actions.

So "she was possessed" has never been the official response.

It was her own powers that was involved in what happened, so even if she wasn't in control of herself it still makes sense that she would feel responsible for what happened.

[Ichijinijisanji]

So is "whataboutism".

Not necessarily when talking about fairness.
Plus I mean whataboutism cuts both ways since that's been a defense of krakoa
But again I can't really see if this is just propaganda narratively

Not really. His actions was a major mistake that nearly led it to happen but Jean stopped it in time, or that's what it seemed like anyway.

Hmm rereading you are correct
the dialogue indicates they may be free now
we'll see if this is followed up