Jean Grey / Phoenix Appreciation 2021

[PyroFN]

I'm sorry, but I do feel the need to say this: I don't think it's cute, funny, or, quite frankly, respectable to imply that anyone should be "roast[ing]" one of the few, if not only, Native American-Latina deaf characters in comics.

I mean, you have characters that have killed people and animals to advance their schemes, violated or had a hand in violating others, psychically, physically, and sexually, and who have displayed an utter disregard for the lives and safety of others to ensure their own security and gains.

I wouldn’t go that far.

She is not being roasted for her ethnicity or disability. If you want make a point of “we shouldn’t roast characters period”, then it’s fine, but the mere fact that she has a disability is not a pass to be treated as too sensitive, especially since the comment was about Echo being the wrong choice as a Phoenix host. There was no comment about her skin color, ethnicity, gender, or anything.

[Mercury]

I wouldn’t go that far.

She is not being roasted for her ethnicity or disability. If you want make a point of “we shouldn’t roast characters period”, then it’s fine, but the mere fact that she has a disability is not a pass to be treated as too sensitive, especially since the comment was about Echo being the wrong choice as a Phoenix host. There was no comment about her skin color, ethnicity, gender, or anything.

Do excuse me, but simply and accurately stating essential aspects of this character, i.e., Echo, is by no means "go[ing] that far."

Furthermore, I did make a point of underscoring that I feel "we shouldn't roast characters period" by highlighting the behavior and actions of one particular character people are currently tripping over themselves fawning over and making clear that I wouldn't suggest "roast[ing]" them either. But, of course, you didn't quote that part, now did you?

I'm sorry, but I do feel the need to say this: I don't think it's cute, funny, or, quite frankly, respectable to imply that anyone should be "roast[ing]" one of the few, if not only, Native American-Latina deaf characters in comics.

I mean, you have characters that have killed people and animals to advance their schemes, violated or had a hand in violating others, psychically, physically, and sexually, and who have displayed an utter disregard for the lives and safety of others to ensure their own security and gains. I don't see anyone talking about "roast[ing]" them, nor would I suggest doing so, either.

[Daedra]

Good points.

Honestly, as I mentioned above, they should be resurrecting characters like Jean's family, Warpath, and other mutants who have died innocently and/or in the line of service.

I would love for Elaine to be resurrected 20 years younger and have a lesbian liason with Emma Frost

[Mercury]

I would love for Elaine to be resurrected 20 years younger and have a lesbian liason with Emma Frost

You would.

[Daedra]

You would.

We can’t just resurrect the entire Grey clan and do nothing with it, the secret to a successful return is turning the sexiness up to eleven and have trouble ensue!

[Kitty&Piotr<3]

Narratively, we don't need Jean's family back. As with most of them, Jean has a found family in the X-Men.

[Daedra]

Narratively, we don't need Jean's family back. As with most of them, Jean has a found family in the X-Men.

Well, that’s a predictable reaction if I ever saw one….. the fact that we don’t need the GREY’S back is exactly why we need them back asap

[Mercury]

We can’t just resurrect the entire Grey clan and do nothing with it, the secret to a successful return is turning the sexiness up to eleven and have trouble ensue!

I wasn't suggesting resurrecting "the entire Grey clan"; really, only Jean's niece and nephew. Though both were, I believe, either prepubescent or had recently reached puberty, no age modifications would be necessary for the sophomoric plot you have in mind. I mean, based on her past attempt(s?) with teenage Scott, I assume Emma would do just fine with young Gailyn and Joey Bailey...

[Daedra]

I wasn't suggesting resurrecting "the entire Grey clan"; really, only Jean's niece and nephew. Though both were, I believe, either prepubescent or had recently reached puberty, no age modifications would be necessary for the sophomoric plot you have in mind. I mean, based on her past attempt(s?) with teenage Scott, I assume Emma would do just fine with young Gailyn and Joey Bailey...

Hey, as long as you can provide them with an interesting power-set and they don’t turn into villains I’m all in

[Mercury]

Narratively, we don't need Jean's family back. As with most of them, Jean has a found family in the X-Men.

Narratively speaking, we don't need a lot of things back or period, but they get shoehorned into the plots anyway.

As a founding member, the first female X-Man, and a character that has endured for nearly 60 years, Jean Grey should be treated with the respect and dignity that warrants, if not reinstatement of her family, then true closure regarding their cruel and vicious murders. For godsakes, some characters' mythos - I'm thinking of my second favorite comic book character, Batman - are entirely based on such tragedies. Her family, including children, were murdered. I want it addressed, both respectfully and profoundly.

Frankly, in comparison, I could give a f*ck about another Phoenix Force rehash. As a teenager, I fell in love with Jean Grey, not the Phoenix Force. And, as written before Claremont and by Claremont himself, she never needed it to achieve such heights of power. She's always had the ability - the "infinite mental powers" - to transcend many of the limitations set before and imposed upon her. She still does. (Thank you, Bendis!)

And honestly, Jean deserves more than just a fair focus on her slaughtered family; she deserves to be written as someone who has both endured and transcended real horror and trauma, but who has not let either transmogrify her to the degree required to become a creature of myriad perpetrations like some characters have. Honestly, some days I wish Marvel would just sell her to a writer or another comic book company that could positively exploit all that she has to offer as a symbol of survival. /endrant

[PyroFN]

Do excuse me, but simply and accurately stating essential aspects of this character, i.e., Echo, is by no means "go[ing] that far."

Furthermore, I did make a point of underscoring that I feel "we shouldn't roast characters period" by highlighting the behavior and actions of one particular character people are currently tripping over themselves fawning over and making clear that I wouldn't suggest "roast[ing]" them either. But, of course, you didn't quote that part, now did you?

Because you didn’t make it clear you meant it for generally every character. The word “them” can easily be seen as referring to Echo specifically the same way it can refer to a large group of people.

Your mentioning Echo being deaf and a Native American leads to the misunderstanding that you are highlighting those qualities as a reason to avoid it completely. I’m sorry that I misunderstood, but I do have very good reason to misunderstand when you line your explanation in that way.

[Mercury]

Because you didn’t make it clear you meant it for generally every character. The word “them” can easily be seen as referring to Echo specifically the same way it can refer to a large group of people.

It is very clear. Again, I wrote:

I mean, you have characters that have killed people and animals to advance their schemes, violated or had a hand in violating others, psychically, physically, and sexually, and who have displayed an utter disregard for the lives and safety of others to ensure their own security and gains. I don't see anyone talking about "roast[ing]" them, nor would I suggest doing so, either.

I am obviously not talking about Echo anywhere in the paragraph above. Furthermore, when I say, "I don't see anyone talking about "roast[ing]" them, nor would I suggest doing so, either," the quantifier "either" clearly indicates I am referring to the character whose actions I have listed in the preceding sentence.

Your mentioning Echo being deaf and a Native American leads to the misunderstanding that you are highlighting those qualities as a reason to avoid it completely. I’m sorry that I misunderstood, but I do have very good reason to misunderstand when you line your explanation in that way.

I highlighted Echo's qualities as a reason to avoid what exactly?

And to be clear, I highlighted her race, ethnicity, and disability simply to underscore that I think it is in bad taste to suggest "roast[ing]" such a rare and unique character that could and does serve as a role model for minorities and people living with disabilites, especially over an irrelevant firebird. I did nothing wrong or untoward by highlighting this. Not to mention, Echo, as a character, didn't take away or steal the Phoenix Force from Jean. Jean willingly and forcefully expelled it and both congratulated and warned her upon her bonding with the Phoenix Force.

[PyroFN]

It is very clear. Again, I wrote:



I am obviously not talking about Echo anywhere in the paragraph above. Furthermore, when I say, "I don't see anyone talking about "roast[ing]" them, nor would I suggest doing so, either," the quantifier "either" clearly indicates I am referring to the character whose actions I have listed in the preceding sentence.



I highlighted Echo's qualities as a reason to avoid what exactly?

And to be clear, I highlighted her race, ethnicity, and disability simply to underscore that I think it is in bad taste to suggest "roast[ing]" such a rare and unique character that could and does serve as a role model for minorities and people living with disabilites, especially over an irrelevant firebird. I did nothing wrong or untoward by highlighting this. Not to mention, Echo, as a character, didn't take away or steal the Phoenix Force from Jean. Jean willingly and forcefully expelled it and both congratulated and warned her upon her bonding with the Phoenix Force.

Do not tell me that your second paragraph is meant to be a separate matter from the first. Echo is the subject in the original paragraph, so it is not out of the question for me to think we are still talking about Echo.

I didn’t say you did anything wrong. I am saying that what they are doing isn’t in poor taste. No one did anything wrong. No one highlighted her race, ethnicity, or disability. No one was even thinking about it. That is why made the point mentioning that if we shouldn’t roast one person then we shouldn’t do so for the rest.

I clearly misunderstood and I apologized for it. Either accept it or don’t. Either way, I made my say and am gonna try to end this because at this point, neither of us are getting anything out of this conversation.

[Mercury]

Do not tell me that your second paragraph is meant to be a separate matter from the first. Echo is the subject in the original paragraph, so it is not out of the question for me to think we are still talking about Echo.

I have told you and will continue telling you that the second paragraph clearly does not refer to Echo in any way. In fact, it is illogical to say, think, or claim that I was referring to her, unless, of course, you are implying that she is one of those characters that has "killed people and animals to advance their schemes, violated or had a hand in violating others psychically, physically, and sexually, and who have displayed an utter disregard for the lives and safety of others to ensure their own security and gains." Otherwise, I don't see how you could possibly assume I am referring to her.

I didn’t say you did anything wrong. I am saying that what they are doing isn’t in poor taste. No one did anything wrong. No one highlighted her race, ethnicity, or disability. No one was even thinking about it.

It is in poor taste to me. I never said I expected anyone to agree with me on that view. Furthermore, I highlighted her race, ethnicity, and disability for the reason I listed in my previous post. At least I didn't accuse nor am I currently accusing Daedra of being a racist for making the comment that she made, though there are members on this forum that would go there.

That is why made the point mentioning that if we shouldn’t roast one person then we shouldn’t do so for the rest.

Actually, however vague it may have been to you, I made that point first. I have tried pointing out to you where exactly I did this, but if you don't want to believe or accept that, I can do nothing to change your mind.

I clearly misunderstood and I apologized for it. Either accept it or don’t. Either way, I made my say and am gonna try to end this because at this point, neither of us are getting anything out of this conversation.

I do accept your apology, I am just clarifying a few things. I have told you before, despite the fact that we have disagreed in the past, that I appreciate all of the knowledge and information that you bring to the table in our discussions. I enjoy reading your posts. I still feel that way.

This is my first time reading these pages. Um. Wow.

[Daedra]

This is my first time reading these pages. Um. Wow.

First time I read those I was in elementary school