Sins of Sinister a new Crossover coming January 2023

[Agent Grayson]

Seriously. You do the same stuff, people complain. You do different stuff, people complain...

"Different" doesn't always mean "good".

[Dipter]

I guess I should count myself lucky that I haven't grown as cynical yet.

[Devaishwarya]

but it's a crossover

You can come here and get the recap review, go to x-spoilers...that's what I do.
Unless you're 100 % invested and the story continues directly from book to book to book (as with the original Inferno) you really don't need to read/buy everything...regardless of what the writers tell you.

I haven't bought any full length crossovers/event outside and apart from the books I'm reading in ages.

[charliehustle415]

You can come here and get the recap review, go to x-spoilers...that's what I do.
Unless you're 100 % invested and the story continues directly from book to book to book (as with the original Inferno) you really don't need to read/buy everything...regardless of what the writers tell you.

I haven't bought any full length crossovers/event outside and apart from the books I'm reading in ages.

uh hello, do you know where you are!?

we're on an enthusiast forum and you expect me to not be a completist!

how dare you and a good day to you.

[Devaishwarya]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL ...touche

[ohsnapulon5000]

it had better be the gayest thing with the most Baldrillardesque frippery a Fop could ever conjure in his last days at Versailles.

[jwatson]

You can come here and get the recap review, go to x-spoilers...that's what I do.
Unless you're 100 % invested and the story continues directly from book to book to book (as with the original Inferno) you really don't need to read/buy everything...regardless of what the writers tell you.

I haven't bought any full length crossovers/event outside and apart from the books I'm reading in ages.

Same. Last full events i bought were x of swords. outside of that i just skip all over it. Unless it's events that are one shots or have their own book like curse of the mutants and last annihilation. A bit of it hit sword and guardians but it was just a good event.

actually the most recent one would be reckoning war which was also pretty good.

[Jackraow21]

I liked a lot of X of Swords. The one-shots (Creation, Stasis and Destruction) were all solid, as were the Hickman X-men issues. And I enjoyed the Wolverine 2-parter with Solem and retrieving the two Muramasa blades, and the Cassara drawn issues of the tournament itself (Logan killing the Summoner and then fighting his mother was great, as was his drinking contest with Ororo; and her taking out Death and feeding him to the vamps was super badass).

But I will admit it got pretty bloated in parts and could’ve been trimmed down. And I could’ve done without Kid Cable getting his arm broken by Doug’s huge wife and crying his eyes out about it to his parents. That kind of made me nauseous honestly, so I’ve tried to block it out and ripped those pages out of my hardcover (okay, not really… but I thought about it).

[Dante Milton]

I guess I'm in the minority because I have enjoyed reading Sinister so far in the Krakoa era and I'm really looking forward to seeing him get what's coming to him. Which is what I hope the end goal of this crossover will be. I do understand people feeling event fatigue, but I am definitely not a completionist so that's not really a concern for me, and I would expect the downfall of Sinister to be relevant to more than one book so a crossover makes sense. That said, a lot of the promo language so far is making this sound like it could be an AoA or AoXM style story, and I do not particularly want that. I'll wait for more info before breaking out the torches.

[Exodus]

sometimes Sinister's new queer-coding rubs me the wrong way, sometimes I think it is quite funny...

...I also think Moira's powers used by Sinister are quite silly and overpowered...

and that's the tea.

[Saithor]

sometimes Sinister's new queer-coding rubs me the wrong way, sometimes I think it is quite funny...

...I also think Moira's powers used by Sinister are quite silly and overpowered...

and that's the tea.

He was always a little over the top but yeah they really increased that a lot with this run which….there was about a hundred other things at the time but maybe we should have this conversation. Is sinister being played up as a gay stereotype?

[Master of Sound]

Age of Apocalypse was a 10/10
Age of X was a 9/10
Age of X-Man was a 6/10

Now we seem to get a Age of Sinister. I am just not sure yet. If it involves a lot of cloning, then I'm just not happy. I never liked his cloning program.

[Exodus]

He was always a little over the top but yeah they really increased that a lot with this run which….there was about a hundred other things at the time but maybe we should have this conversation. Is sinister being played up as a gay stereotype?

I think he definitely comes across as such. But I'm less worried about it because the queer representation in X-Men comics beautifully increased in the last years (minus trans* representation...), so I can stomach a queer-coded super-villain personally a lot better these days than let's say in past Disney movies.

I think a lot of characters when it comes to Gillen's writing are speaking with a very similiar voice: Emma, Selene, Sinister, Xavier, Destiny, Mystique, Shaw...aren't they all somehow a similar variations of the same character?

[BobbysWorld]

He was always a little over the top but yeah they really increased that a lot with this run which….there was about a hundred other things at the time but maybe we should have this conversation. Is sinister being played up as a gay stereotype?

Eh, there definitely is queer-coding for the sake of camp in how Gillen writes him, and obviously there's a long and not great history of that in comics, but its somewhat different when its coming from an out LGBTQ+ writer.....there's no worry that gay people are the butt of the joke when the writer in question is in on the joke, so to speak. And of course, how that's received is still inevitably going to vary between LGBTQ+ readers.

There's always going to be some who are like 'still wish he didn't take this route and never going to be comfortable with it given my awareness of how its historically been used' and 'playing into stereotypes that have been actively weaponized against queer people in the past still perpetuates and enables those negative associations no matter who's writing.'

While others might have stances like 'even negative stereotypes can be matched to real people who fit or embody those stereotypes, and a writer who's part of the group those stereotypes are about writing them to give them three-dimensionality is not remotely interchangeable with writers outside that group writing them to reduce the three-dimensionality of that group so readers are less likely to relate or emotionally invest in them.' Or 'negative stereotypes have to be chosen for a character whereas people who match stereotypes aren't doing so in service of a narrative or a writer's bias or agenda, they're just living their lives - that's the difference between those things, and thus a writer of the identity those stereotypes are meant to limit often has the agenda of writing them not as caricatures but as actual representation, and this is a huge distinction.' And others might even view it as a kind of reclamation of those stereotypes.

Personally, I think each and every one of those takes has merit and validity - but only as part of an intracommunity discussion. So I'm always gonna be leery about steering criticism of a writer's choices in that direction, when the writer is known to be LGBTQ+, because quite frankly, straight people have spent decades queer-coding villains to demonize gayness and tarnish its association with characters without ever encountering real pushback. So I'm never gonna be down for the irony of an actual LGBTQ+ writer in the here and now possibly getting actual pushback or backlash for their use of such a trope, when it never hurt the reputation or optics of the many, MANY people who have used that trope with actual malicious intent. Not a chance I'm willing to take, especially on bigger public forums, and with full awareness there's plenty of people who don't give actual fucks about any harm or negative impact queer-coding villains could have, but would still happily parrot a soundbite along those lines if it was aimed at a writer they're happy to target for any reasons of their own.

Like, there are pros and cons to most angles taken in online discourses and sometimes the potential downsides outweigh any potential gains a particular angle might make. This is one of those cases where I don't see any chance picking 'Gillen queercoding Sinister is bad' as a hill to die on leads anywhere worthwhile, and there are other criticisms that can be made without being nearly as double-edged a sword. While if queer-coding villains actually is the discourse a person wants to wade into, like, there's no shortage of other examples to point at and writers to criticize for it.

[Confuzzled]

The queercoding is fine. It's the Mengele association that needs to be retconned out, not because it mars Sinister (lol) but a proficient scientist like Sinister believing in and aligning with Mengele unnecessarily props up Mengele instead of showing him for the real-life pathetic flop that he was.