Would it have been better if some established super villain depowered almost all the mutants?

[gurkle]

Like for example when she nearly repowered everyone. She was under no duress at the time. There were mutants who hated losing their powers: there were also mutants who were delighted to be free of them. The right thing to do would be to offer to repower those who wanted to be one group at a time; but no, it was all too hard. Iron Patriot was 100% right to stop her.

Not to defend the plot of Children's Crusade, which had gone completely off the rails by that issue - but there was an in-story justification for that. She was going to repower mutants one at a time, and had offered to do it, but the X-Men refused the offer, demanding to take Wanda into custody instead, and it devolved into an Avengers vs. X-Men brawl. She then explained to Patriot that the only way to save mutants is to reverse the spell before the Avengers and X-Men arrive to imprison or kill her, and the Young Avengers then argue over whether she's right: Billy, of course, agrees with her, suck-up that he is, but so do Cassie (poor Cassie) and Teddy. Does any of this really make sense? Of course not, especially the kill-crazy writing of the X-Men. (Scott is offered the chance to reverse M-Day and says no? What?) But the explanation is in there.

The "makes decisions for all mutants unilaterally" thing does seem to have become a pattern with the way writers write her, probably because they're all trying to put spins or new twists on M-Day. It would be nice if the Uncanny Avengers disaster showed her learning a lesson about this, but nobody really seems to have learned anything at all except that they should be nicer to each other.

[coveredinbees]

I would have liked it more if it had been an established villain, but she wasn't a bad choice. I can't even think of a villain with the power to cause M-Day. Cthon?

I think right now she would work better if she stayed more unhinged, but not intentionally evil. Just very unhelpful. She's just not fit to serve, but she wasn't before HoM, either, was she?
But I do like her as a hero again.

[Arthas]

I generally agree with this except the part about Hal Jordan getting a well written redemption story...they just pulled a cop-out, said he was possessed (all while systematically undoing every bad thing he did), and everyone but Batman just immediately accepted him as a white hat...and Batman was actually treated as unreasonable for not kissing his ass...it was a horrible story that propped up the character at the expense of just about everyone else in the DCU.

I did say "comparatively" (and compared to Children's Crusade, Rebirth was a better written redemption in my view) and I don't think Batman was treated that unreasonably. He acted in character for what he knew, it was just that he didn't have all the facts (like practically all the non-GL heroes there) and the GL's didn't take the time to explain. In a way I'd say Hal acted impulsively in not bothering to explain at all but that was in character for him too.

[Sea Hound]

Not to defend the plot of Children's Crusade, which had gone completely off the rails by that issue - but there was an in-story justification for that. She was going to repower mutants one at a time, and had offered to do it, but the X-Men refused the offer, demanding to take Wanda into custody instead, and it devolved into an Avengers vs. X-Men brawl. She then explained to Patriot that the only way to save mutants is to reverse the spell before the Avengers and X-Men arrive to imprison or kill her, and the Young Avengers then argue over whether she's right: Billy, of course, agrees with her, suck-up that he is, but so do Cassie (poor Cassie) and Teddy. Does any of this really make sense? Of course not, especially the kill-crazy writing of the X-Men. (Scott is offered the chance to reverse M-Day and says no? What?) But the explanation is in there.

The "makes decisions for all mutants unilaterally" thing does seem to have become a pattern with the way writers write her, probably because they're all trying to put spins or new twists on M-Day. It would be nice if the Uncanny Avengers disaster showed her learning a lesson about this, but nobody really seems to have learned anything at all except that they should be nicer to each other.

It's funny, I agree with almost everything you've said, but feel very differently about her.

To go back to the OPs question, I'd be fine with Wanda having depowered the mutants. My problem is with the stories afterwards which have been really muddled. It's like they had the intention of redeeming her, but ended up confusing things massively (CC) or making her seem very unsympathetic towards the group she wronged. (UA)

Ideally they should have written a clear cut properly explained case of possession and/or insanity in CC; and then written her as less adversarial/victimish in UA. (I'll argue that Remender has the knack of making all his characters unlikeable, but that's another story). I think RR choosing to use her as his mouthpiece in the "mutants have no culture" argument was just a bad move, when her actions (even if not voluntary) did so much damage to them.

The Children's Crusade is really hard to process for me, because it doesn't really make much sense and ends up leaving more questions than answers. (Doom did it. But why? And how? And when?) As you said, a lot of the characters are written as mindlessly aggressive. I'll still argue that her choice to repower was wrong, even if her position was difficult.

Because the stories are so muddled and messy, a reader can justify a range of judgements which go from hero to villain, which is a writing fail to me.

[TheCatBastet]

I would have liked it more if it had been an established villain, but she wasn't a bad choice. I can't even think of a villain with the power to cause M-Day. Cthon?

I believe that somebody already mentioned this, but how about Legion? He's a reality warper, he has established mental problems, he has established Daddy issues. To be fair to Xavier, David was a teenager before Charlie even knew he existed. But once he did, he didn't seem to spend a lot of time trying to form a relationship with his son. You could say he neglected David while devoting himself to the mutant cause. Something that could certainly lead to resentment on David;s part.

[Star_Jammer]

I believe that somebody already mentioned this, but how about Legion? He's a reality warper, he has established mental problems, he has established Daddy issues. To be fair to Xavier, David was a teenager before Charlie even knew he existed. But once he did, he didn't seem to spend a lot of time trying to form a relationship with his son. You could say he neglected David while devoting himself to the mutant cause. Something that could certainly lead to resentment on David;s part.

Another alternate reality caused by David was probably out of the equation, however. Plus he/she/it had to be Avengers related to create Bendis's new status quo.

The thing is, Wanda didn't have the power to do what she did unless coupled with a strong power source, which Bendis never bothered to explain (that was done in CC). Plus she had already accepted the loss of her children, so for that to be the point of her becoming unhinged was horrible writing.

[TheCatBastet]

Another alternate reality caused by David was probably out of the equation, however. Plus he/she/it had to be Avengers related to create Bendis's new status quo.

The thing is, Wanda didn't have the power to do what she did unless coupled with a strong power source, which Bendis never bothered to explain (that was done in CC). Plus she had already accepted the loss of her children, so for that to be the point of her becoming unhinged was horrible writing.

Oh, I agree; it was awful writing. I was just trying to think of a character that could've been used instead of Wanda.