Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 151 to 165 of 165
  1. #151
    Extraordinary Member Lukmendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    7,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havok83 View Post
    well that played out in UXM v5 when he returned with the knowledge of his teen self which was the context for why he was the way he was
    Hm, I checked UXM Annual#1 vol 5 and he only makes a brief comments about having his teen version's memories, when he's on the beach talking about the things he had done, he doesn't mention his teen version's memories, which's too bad, those memories could make him reflect more there.

    Also, his resurrection was surprisingly alright.

  2. #152
    Invincible Member Havok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    27,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukmendes View Post
    Hm, I checked UXM Annual#1 vol 5 and he only makes a brief comments about having his teen version's memories, when he's on the beach talking about the things he had done, he doesn't mention his teen version's memories, which's too bad, those memories could make him reflect more there.

    Also, his resurrection was surprisingly alright.
    Rosenberg did an interview, which was posted above, where he explains the context behind his Scott, which actually makes sense given how unsure he was as a leader. He specifically calls out wanting the time he had has a teen to give him a new perspective which would impact how he moved forward. He was a gentler leader than he was before, but he lacked confidence and had alot of self doubt. His Cyclops didnt return and pick up where Bendis left off. His teen self did impact him which makes the Rosenberg run make more sense once you accept that

  3. #153
    Extraordinary Member Lukmendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    7,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havok83 View Post
    Rosenberg did an interview, which was posted above, where he explains the context behind his Scott, which actually makes sense given how unsure he was as a leader. He specifically calls out wanting the time he had has a teen to give him a new perspective which would impact how he moved forward. He was a gentler leader than he was before, but he lacked confidence and had alot of self doubt. His Cyclops didnt return and pick up where Bendis left off. His teen self did impact him which makes the Rosenberg run make more sense once you accept that
    Well, if there are hints of this in other issues he shows up in, then it's fine, but if it's one of those situations where you need word of god trope to understand what's going on, then it's annoying lol.

  4. #154

    Default

    I don’t even understand how this is a question.

    Has there been any substantial evidence supporting she would?

  5. #155
    Houndmarks Subliminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Is Jean Grey responsible for the actions of her clones? Depends on the court of law... human, Krakoan, Shi'ar, Living Tribunal? 'Jean Grey' is just a construct with a perceived continuity. She can be made of Phoenix force parts, or lab grown by Sinister, or birthed from Elaine or reincarnated by 5 mutants working in tandem. If a reconstructed body shouldn't be considered a true 'Jean' then none of the current representations of Jean are 'real'. If the Jean construct is based on a single soul/memory, then how would dimensions define them? A 4th dimension displaced Jean construct might have the same body, shifted through time, but also has different soul/memories. Likewise, for a universe/dimension displaced Jean construct. If they all perceive themselves to be a Jean Grey, they are all 'real'... and so maybe 'Jean' is culpable if she wants to believe it.

  6. #156
    Jean Grey Scholar Mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    My mind.
    Posts
    7,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subliminal View Post
    ...She can be made of Phoenix force parts, or lab grown by Sinister, or birthed from Elaine or reincarnated by 5 mutants working in tandem. If a reconstructed body shouldn't be considered a true 'Jean' then none of the current representations of Jean are 'real'...
    What are your thoughts about Madelyne Pryor? Considering what you've written, should Pryor be considered "a true 'Jean'"?

  7. #157
    The King Fears NO ONE! Triniking1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunch of Coconuts View Post
    I don’t even understand how this is a question.

    Has there been any substantial evidence supporting she would?
    Well it's not our fault X-Men writers can't keep their canon straight.
    "Cable was right!"

  8. #158
    Houndmarks Subliminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercury View Post
    What are your thoughts about Madelyne Pryor? Considering what you've written, should Pryor be considered "a true 'Jean'"?
    Pryor was given many parts of Jean Grey, but she reinvented herself. When she was finally free to reflect on her identity, she sought the power to make herself a dark reflection of Jean Grey. Does an identity come from one's self or from a culture that sees them or from their nature? Similar considerations for Jamie Maddrox dupes as to Sinister's clones... they exist, and they perpetually reinvent their identities, as do all the Jean Greys. With so many possibilities, how do we determine what a 'true' Jean Grey is?

  9. #159
    Jean Grey Scholar Mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    My mind.
    Posts
    7,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subliminal View Post
    Pryor was given many parts of Jean Grey, but she reinvented herself. When she was finally free to reflect on her identity, she sought the power to make herself a dark reflection of Jean Grey.
    Going by this logic, the same can be said of the Phoenix clone, who, like Madelyne, may have been an exact copy of Jean imbued with a fragment of her soul, but was still a separate living being who reinvented herself, made her own choices, and was exposed and subjected to experiences and violations to which (the majority of) the real Jean was not. However, whereas being abandoned by Scott, discovering that she was a clone of Jean, and being violated by Sinister acted as catalysts for Madelyne's breakdown into "a dark reflection of Jean Grey," Jason Wyngarde's sustained psychic and physical violations of Phoenix were the catalysts for her devolution into Dark Phoenix.

    As I've written before, it is fascinating to read how people claim that there is no distinction between Jean and the Phoenix clone but that there is one between Jean and Madelyne. In the end, I chalk up such arguments as stemming from fans of Phoenix who hate the post-Dark Phoenix Saga retcon, and fans of Madelyne who alternatively hate and love the retcon after Jean's return. (After all, many people love Madelyne's devolution into the Goblin Queen.) In a sense, in both cases, Jean is required to shoulder the bulk of the blame for devouring a star that destroyed a populated planet and for her return being the cause of Madelyne's destruction in order for these narratives to work.

    Admittedly, finding, grasping, and following the through-line of Jean's character in all of this mess is taxing and frustrating, but I'm both up for and determined to meet the challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subliminal View Post
    Does an identity come from one's self or from a culture that sees them or from their nature? Similar considerations for Jamie Maddrox dupes as to Sinister's clones... they exist, and they perpetually reinvent their identities, as do all the Jean Greys. With so many possibilities, how do we determine what a 'true' Jean Grey is?
    I suppose our identities are both innate and manufactured, based on nature and nurture. As someone who believes in the existence of the soul, the higher qualities of which stem from and are rooted in a Source that transcends our limited understanding of the nature of life, I see a clear distinction between a clone imbued with a fragment of a soul and the original and full possessor of said soul. Granted, as many have pointed out, the Resurrection Protocols do present me with a conundrum, one I haven't quite thought through yet. This also made me realize that, as much as I've loved Hickman's run, I've never really fully embraced his use of cloning and resurrection. Mind you, it's not something that has affected my enjoyment of this era, but it has periodically buzzed in the back of my mind like an annoying gnat.

    I still have to review the protocols myself (I'm a bad X-Men fan) and think about it some more to see if there's an argument around it.

  10. #160
    Jean Grey Scholar Mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    My mind.
    Posts
    7,128

    Default

    Let’s see what happens during Madelyne’s return.

  11. #161
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercury View Post
    Those two pics are truly a wonder to behold, thanks for posting them

  12. #162
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    This thread gets to the crux of a lot of X dilemmas, but especially to the whole Resurrection Protocols in the X titles. More than ever, I wish Hickman had been allowed to finish his story.

  13. #163
    ♥♥عابث سولاناس♥♥ Park Slope Pixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,027

    Default

    Yes, of course.

  14. #164
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    2,690

    Default

    Nope. No matter how much nature plays a part in who we are, its impossible to separate nurture from who we become either. We are at least in part the product of our experiences, like if you think about something you did that had a specific reason and then go what if the thing that prompted/inspired that reason had never happened and that line of reasoning thus never entered your brain, would you have still done the thing that you had done for a specific reason that no longer exists? LOL.

    Like, yes, Jean is part of the Phoenix and Maddy, there are elements of her, but they stopped being JUST Jean the second they began having experiences she didn't and thus their actions and reasoning and choices at least in part began based on things that were in the original playbook based on just all things her. She's CAUSALLY part of some of the choices the Phoenix or Maddy made, but not in terms of having any ability to direct their actions, more in the vein of a formative influence.

    But while there are some things that lead people to be held accountable for the actions of others who they influenced in some sizable way, there's a key ingredient in those situations which is that in every single one I can think of, the person who held a formative influence on someone's action and thus is blamed to some degree as in 'they never would have done those things if you hadn't influenced them in this way'.....like, the key element here is that influence being later held accountable, was AWARE AND COGNIZANT of the influence they had on that other person. We're talking about parents, teachers, employers, etc......people who have to at least some degree chosen and held an awareness that they're a formative influence impacting someone else's decision making process.

    And that's a key thing here for me.....even if there are things Phoenix and Maddy did that are born of Jean's influence, of 'pieces of her' that are a part of them.....Jean had absolutely NOTHING to do with the choice to shape or influence two beings derived from her. She had nothing to do with Maddy's creation, and thus literally no ability prior to when they met to have any influence that was deliberate on her part, chosen, something she did with intent and full knowledge that it could or would impact Maddy's decision making process. Same thing with the Phoenix. Even if Jean on some level chose to merge with it or open herself up to it and thus become the blueprint for who it became when it took her place and based itself on her....that was a decision made in the heat of urgency in order to save lives, and no reason to believe she had any idea the Phoenix would base elements of itself off of her - and thus she again had no active role in influencing it. And so for me it becomes, how do you hold someone accountable even just for being an influence in someone else acting a certain way - if at no point do you ever have an option to OPT OUT of being that influence OR to consciously shape that influence?

    Choice is what drives responsibility, and Jean didn't choose for these two beings to be based on her and her own choices, and after their creation she at best was a voice who could try and persuade them to do or not do certain things.

    But whatever the Phoenix and Maddy did in their own lives once separate from Jean, whatever choices they made, Jean can't be held accountable IMO if she literally at no point had an ability to choose otherwise FOR them, to override or veto or stop the choice they were making. How can she be responsible for a choice she didn't have the power to make or unmake, because it wasn't her choice? And as far as things Maddy or Phoenix did or choices made that were at least in part influenced by Jean's own actual existence.....as long as that was still just a PART of it, then its equally significant that part of that choice or action was also based on experiences Maddy or the Phoenix had SEPARATE from Jean and that Jean didn't actually have herself and thus weren't an influence in her own choices.....because if Jean wasn't making those same choices, in part BECAUSE the things that led Phoenix or Maddy to make those choices were experiences that weren't a part of the sum total that is Jean herself....again, same issue. How can Jean be responsible for someone who's decision making she has no control over choosing to make decisions that Jean wouldn't make?

    Jean's Jean and Maddy's Maddy. Logan is Logan and Laura is Laura and Gabby is Gabby. We don't talk about these characters interchangeably and they're treated as individuals within the comics, even if in some cases they're genetically identical or based off each other or made from each other's very DNA.....because they still are written and treated as having their own lives, their own agency, and constantly making choices that are different from each other's. Because they're different people, no matter how they started out, and only the person who makes an actual choice that they and they alone have the power to make or choose not to make - assuming they're not actually being coerced or their power to make choices isn't being hijacked or overridden by someone else with mind control or even something like blackmail or threatening to kill a loved one if they don't do this thing whether like it or not - is ultimately responsible for the choice that nobody made them make, or that nobody actually had the power to stop them from making.

    And that's not the case with Jean, Maddy and the Phoenix. She might have been part of the puzzle, an ingredient in the pot, but the second they stopped being JUST Jean and became someone else with their own agency and a decision-making ability that didn't run through Jean and require her approval or have an option to veto.....their choices stopped being a reflection of what she would do in that same situation, or her responsibility.

  15. #165
    Mighty Member Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobbysWorld View Post
    Nope. No matter how much nature plays a part in who we are, its impossible to separate nurture from who we become either. We are at least in part the product of our experiences, like if you think about something you did that had a specific reason and then go what if the thing that prompted/inspired that reason had never happened and that line of reasoning thus never entered your brain, would you have still done the thing that you had done for a specific reason that no longer exists? LOL.

    Like, yes, Jean is part of the Phoenix and Maddy, there are elements of her, but they stopped being JUST Jean the second they began having experiences she didn't and thus their actions and reasoning and choices at least in part began based on things that were in the original playbook based on just all things her. She's CAUSALLY part of some of the choices the Phoenix or Maddy made, but not in terms of having any ability to direct their actions, more in the vein of a formative influence.

    But while there are some things that lead people to be held accountable for the actions of others who they influenced in some sizable way, there's a key ingredient in those situations which is that in every single one I can think of, the person who held a formative influence on someone's action and thus is blamed to some degree as in 'they never would have done those things if you hadn't influenced them in this way'.....like, the key element here is that influence being later held accountable, was AWARE AND COGNIZANT of the influence they had on that other person. We're talking about parents, teachers, employers, etc......people who have to at least some degree chosen and held an awareness that they're a formative influence impacting someone else's decision making process.

    And that's a key thing here for me.....even if there are things Phoenix and Maddy did that are born of Jean's influence, of 'pieces of her' that are a part of them.....Jean had absolutely NOTHING to do with the choice to shape or influence two beings derived from her. She had nothing to do with Maddy's creation, and thus literally no ability prior to when they met to have any influence that was deliberate on her part, chosen, something she did with intent and full knowledge that it could or would impact Maddy's decision making process. Same thing with the Phoenix. Even if Jean on some level chose to merge with it or open herself up to it and thus become the blueprint for who it became when it took her place and based itself on her....that was a decision made in the heat of urgency in order to save lives, and no reason to believe she had any idea the Phoenix would base elements of itself off of her - and thus she again had no active role in influencing it. And so for me it becomes, how do you hold someone accountable even just for being an influence in someone else acting a certain way - if at no point do you ever have an option to OPT OUT of being that influence OR to consciously shape that influence?

    Choice is what drives responsibility, and Jean didn't choose for these two beings to be based on her and her own choices, and after their creation she at best was a voice who could try and persuade them to do or not do certain things.

    But whatever the Phoenix and Maddy did in their own lives once separate from Jean, whatever choices they made, Jean can't be held accountable IMO if she literally at no point had an ability to choose otherwise FOR them, to override or veto or stop the choice they were making. How can she be responsible for a choice she didn't have the power to make or unmake, because it wasn't her choice? And as far as things Maddy or Phoenix did or choices made that were at least in part influenced by Jean's own actual existence.....as long as that was still just a PART of it, then its equally significant that part of that choice or action was also based on experiences Maddy or the Phoenix had SEPARATE from Jean and that Jean didn't actually have herself and thus weren't an influence in her own choices.....because if Jean wasn't making those same choices, in part BECAUSE the things that led Phoenix or Maddy to make those choices were experiences that weren't a part of the sum total that is Jean herself....again, same issue. How can Jean be responsible for someone who's decision making she has no control over choosing to make decisions that Jean wouldn't make?

    Jean's Jean and Maddy's Maddy. Logan is Logan and Laura is Laura and Gabby is Gabby. We don't talk about these characters interchangeably and they're treated as individuals within the comics, even if in some cases they're genetically identical or based off each other or made from each other's very DNA.....because they still are written and treated as having their own lives, their own agency, and constantly making choices that are different from each other's. Because they're different people, no matter how they started out, and only the person who makes an actual choice that they and they alone have the power to make or choose not to make - assuming they're not actually being coerced or their power to make choices isn't being hijacked or overridden by someone else with mind control or even something like blackmail or threatening to kill a loved one if they don't do this thing whether like it or not - is ultimately responsible for the choice that nobody made them make, or that nobody actually had the power to stop them from making.

    And that's not the case with Jean, Maddy and the Phoenix. She might have been part of the puzzle, an ingredient in the pot, but the second they stopped being JUST Jean and became someone else with their own agency and a decision-making ability that didn't run through Jean and require her approval or have an option to veto.....their choices stopped being a reflection of what she would do in that same situation, or her responsibility.
    By your logic then, a lot of members of the various Krakoan X teams are responsible only for their behavior as clones. They aren’t the people they were prior to the Resurrection Protocols. Of course, some of them like Xavier were already clones or others’ bodies. But now, they are again totally different entities. The newly resurrected John Proudstar is not the same person as the Thunderbird who went down with the Harrier jet, according to your logic. But is that really the case? They sure seem like the same people. It is a question I hope the X-Office explores more, but they have to come down on these resurrected folks being the same people. Otherwise, interest in books about clones would almost certainly wane.
    Last edited by Brian B; 01-11-2022 at 09:20 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •