Phoenix and Storm get SOLOS under Brevoort!

[Wiccan]

I'm not twisting anything. I posted panels from recent comics and a quote by Claremont, who created Phoenix. The bottom line is: Jean and Phoenix have an unbreakable connection, and that's been said for nearly fifty years, before, after, and despite the retcon. When a fan of Ororo's states she's a goddess, even though there are plenty of panels indicating otherwise, are they "twisting things"? I think not.

Whether it's "twisting things" or not isn't the point. Sorry if that's not the right term or if you found it rude, but the part you didn't quote in my comment is true.

[Mercury]

Whether it's "twisting things" or not isn't the point. Sorry if that's not the right term or if you found it rude, but the part you didn't quote in my comment is true.

I didn't take offense. Also, I was just about to respond to that part out of genuine respect.

...let's be real, it's a fact that there was a time where Marvel, or at least the X-Office and some of its writers (plus Jason Aaron), didn't want for Jean to be Phoenix/have the Phoenix/anything of the sort. Phoenix Resurrection ends with the conclusion that they should go their separate ways, in Red Jean kept saying she was better off without the Phoenix, etc.

I look at Jean's history from an in-story perspective, which is what I urge all fans to do with their favorite characters rather than being pissed off at writers for presumed inconsistencies or mischaracterizations. We are all as complex and contradictory as our favorite characters should be. That said, for every instance that a writer has implied Jean is not Phoenix "now and forever," there have been multiple instances in which a writer—sometimes, the same writer (!), like Aaron—has stated or implied otherwise, i.e., that she is Phoenix "now and forever."

Ultimately, self-denial and self-delusion as a result of guilt and trauma are core themes in Jean's story, which is why she is so contradictory regarding her identity as Phoenix. Besides that, canon has repeatedly shown that others hosting the Phoenix do not negate her identity as such. The panels and quote by Claremont that I posted only underscore that. I have no interest in spending time criticizing Marvel and its writers for elements of Jean's story that are, essentially, congruent with the aforementioned core themes of her story.

People should be allowed to acknowledge that without you coming with the "well akshually" panels/lines every time.

People should be allowed to acknowledge whatever they want, and I should be allowed to add context to Jean's history however I see fit.

[Thundershot]

In case no one else brought it up, this Phoenix logo was used in the 1995 Malibu crossover "The Phoenix Resurrection: Revleations"

[Wiccan]

I didn't take offense. Also, I was just about to respond to that part out of genuine respect.



I look at Jean's history from an in-story perspective, which is what I urge all fans to do with their favorite characters rather than being pissed off at writers for presumed inconsistencies or mischaracterizations. We are all as complex and contradictory as our favorite characters should be. That said, for every instance that a writer has implied Jean is not Phoenix "now and forever," there have been multiple instances in which a writer—sometimes, the same writer (!), like Aaron—has stated or implied otherwise, i.e., that she is Phoenix "now and forever."

Ultimately, self-denial and self-delusion as a result of guilt and trauma are core themes in Jean's story, which is why she is so contradictory regarding her identity as Phoenix. Besides that, canon has repeatedly shown that others hosting the Phoenix do not negate her identity as such. The panels and quote by Claremont that I posted only underscore that. I have no interest in spending time criticizing Marvel and its writers for elements of Jean's story that are, essentially, congruent with the aforementioned core themes of her story.



People should be allowed to acknowledge whatever they want, and I should be allowed to add context to Jean's history however I see fit.

It's ok to interpret things from an in-story perspective, but a lot of the time people are talking from a meta perspective, or a mix of meta and in-story, and so to keep "correcting" them feels out of touch. And even then, whether it's because something got retconned, or a certain story simply said otherwise, there was still a time, in fact many times, where the in-story narrative was that the Phoenix isn't Jean, or that the Phoenix and Jean should go their separate ways, etc. My least favorite being the original coccoon retcon. And the thing is that those stories haven't been erased or (at least not fully) retconned either. Yes, things are contradictory, but it's not like there's a clear and defined explanation for why. You have your interpretation as to why, which does make sense imo, but it's not like the stories have actually acknowledged that and explicitly and clearly clarified why sometimes they say something and sometimes the opposite.

Even if those lines you posted are the narrative they're going with now, it may only take a couple of years until Marvel changes their tune and goes back to "Nah, Jean and Phoenix are going their separate ways again, their bond isn't unbreakable, Jean is better off without it". So in a way it also kinda doesn't matter as much if a certain book says the "now and forever" line or something to that effect.

In the specific case that started this discussion (I had to look back at it), Havok was merely stating that Jean and the Phoenix "reunited" after it left Echo. Which is pretty much what happened, and yet you felt the need to "correct" them. That's when, imo, it gets condescending for you to sort of randomly insert your interpretation and argue against what doesn't need to be argued against. Because they did not in fact make a whole argument about Jean and the Phoenix being separate that contradicted yours, they just offered a simple bare bones explanation of where the Phoenix has been from Echo to now to someone who was behind. I imagine he most likely has read those panels you posted, as do I, and as do most Jean fans in here

So yes, you can say what you want and "add the context" whenever you see fit, but I'm just saying as someone who's in the same fandom and forum talking about the same characters and stories why I think that it's sometimes uncalled for, especially when it's so often. Though this is something I've thought about before, if the person in question didn't get annoyed I probably would have looked past it, but since they did it felt like it wouldn't be out of nowhere for me to mention it.

[Havok83]

Mercury, I usually appreciate your enthusiasm and positivity, but let's be real, you have a habit of twisting things to fit your narrative. I kinda get it, because I like Jean as Phoenix too and want it to be hers and not a completely seperate character or plot device that can jump into any character. But let's be real, it's a fact that there was a time where Marvel, or at least the X-Office and some of its writers (plus Jason Aaron), didn't want for Jean to be Phoenix/have the Phoenix/anything of the sort. Phoenix Resurrection ends with the conclusion that they should go their separate ways, in Red Jean kept saying she was better off without the Phoenix, etc.

People should be allowed to acknowledge that without you coming with the "well akshually" panels/lines every time.

THIS! Im glad they have finally rectified their mistake, but lets not pretend as if the past few years didnt happen and the offices at Marvel were treating things differently.

In case no one else brought it up, this Phoenix logo was used in the 1995 Malibu crossover "The Phoenix Resurrection: Revleations"

Thank you!

[kcekada]

I think Jean and 'Ro are going to do big things, and I'm totally here for it.

Yeah, they definitely both earned solo titles.

[Agent Grayson]

I’d prefer to see Storm and Jean as part of the teams. I’ll definitely give Storm’s solo a try, but Jean’s will depend on the premise.

[Grunty]

Place your bets will they last 4 or 6 issues or will they be minis from the get go?

[Digifiend]

Ah thanks for the info. That explains why it feels so stale and old.

Yeah, NYX's logo is the only one that's new.

That is not the logo used for that mini series. Also what other Phoenix minis existed in the 90s where you saw this?

As far as I can see the two Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix minis were the only ones - and you're right, they had a different logo.
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jean_Grey_Comic_Books

In case no one else brought it up, this Phoenix logo was used in the 1995 Malibu crossover "The Phoenix Resurrection: Revleations"

Hmm, why isn't that one on the page I just linked above?

[Thundershot]

Yeah, NYX's logo is the only one that's new.

As far as I can see the two Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix minis were the only ones - and you're right, they had a different logo.
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jean_Grey_Comic_Books

Hmm, why isn't that one on the page I just linked above?

Maybe Jean wasn’t in it? Amber Hunt became the host for the Phoenix.. this wasn’t the only issue. There were a few one shots with the story. Mostly forgettable.

[Wiccan]

Yeah, NYX's logo is the only one that's new.

As far as I can see the two Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix minis were the only ones - and you're right, they had a different logo.
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jean_Grey_Comic_Books

Hmm, why isn't that one on the page I just linked above?

Because it isn't a Jean comic... Or did you mean to say that in a sarcastic tone? I can't tell lol.

[PhoenixStudies]

I appreciate Mercury reminding us of crucial quotes and scans from Jean's history.

When we post to a public forum like this, we are not just interacting with those we are having a direct discussion with. We are also interfacing with those out there who are reading our discussions and who may remain silent. Some of them may be seeing these panels for the first time.

I know when I discuss (especially argue lol) with someone on the internet, I am mindful of the lurkers out there. I know I likely won't change the mind of the person I'm arguing with, but I may spark an idea in the mind of someone who is casually watching/reading.

[Mercury]

It's ok to interpret things from an in-story perspective, but a lot of the time people are talking from a meta perspective, or a mix of meta and in-story, and so to keep "correcting" them feels out of touch. And even then, whether it's because something got retconned, or a certain story simply said otherwise, there was still a time, in fact many times, where the in-story narrative was that the Phoenix isn't Jean, or that the Phoenix and Jean should go their separate ways, etc. My least favorite being the original coccoon retcon. And the thing is that those stories haven't been erased or (at least not fully) retconned either. Yes, things are contradictory, but it's not like there's a clear and defined explanation for why. You have your interpretation as to why, which does make sense imo, but it's not like the stories have actually acknowledged that and explicitly and clearly clarified why sometimes they say something and sometimes the opposite.

I'm not correcting anyone as much as adding context to Jean's story. Frankly, I believe it's most fair to acknowledge both the meta and in-story perspectives, but, ultimately, I'm not reading these comics nor am I on these forums to discuss things from an exclusively meta-perspective and take jabs at writers and editors because they didn't craft stories exactly as I would have had them do. Rather, I read the books and come here because I want to delve into this world and these characters—I want to suspend disbelief—as fully and deeply as I can and get lost in the mythos. That is what reading comic books is all about, after all. And in the end, like everything else in life, comic books will continue to shift and change for both the better and the worse. Frankly, I can't help but focus on the larger themes and arcs of the characters that I love and make sense of the seemingly non-sensical from an in-story perspective.

More importantly, as a huge Jean fan, I feel fortunate that despite the retcon and occasional attempts to sever Jean from her legacy, her story—contradictions and all—makes sense. In short (with what we know about her connection to and identity as Phoenix up until this point): Jean achieved her highest potential as a psi, died, seemingly had a hand in creating a duplicate of her own body, split her psyche between her new and original bodies, saved all creation, was later abused and traumatized, had a breakdown that resulted in her accidental decimation of a planet and its people, killed herself, and later denied a portion of herself until partly reemerging from Jamaica Bay. All of this is made very clear in Jean Grey #4, in which she—i.e., her Phoenix consciousness?—tells herself, "...your true will asserted itself and stopped [Dark Phoenix]. You died, of course."

Since then, Jean has repeatedly vacillated between accepting and denying her destiny as being one with "a primal force second only to that of the Creator." Furthermore, the retcon and other insignificant instances in which writers have tried severing her from, to quote Claremont, her "birthright" have been continuously reframed as her own acts of self-denial and self-delusion, again, rooted in guilt and trauma. And that's what I adhere to because, again, it makes sense. In fact, I have so much faith in this overarching theme that I've spent close to the last three years asserting that Jean would be revealed to be Phoenix once more, despite appearances. This is part of the ebb and flow of her story. Some people fight it. I love and embrace it, partly because it's a poignant allegory for the process inherent in healing from trauma.

Even if those lines you posted are the narrative they're going with now, it may only take a couple of years until Marvel changes their tune and goes back to "Nah, Jean and Phoenix are going their separate ways again, their bond isn't unbreakable, Jean is better off without it". So in a way it also kinda doesn't matter as much if a certain book says the "now and forever" line or something to that effect.

From this perspective, none of this matters. None of the characters' histories or identities matter because they can all be changed and contorted on a whim, which, in fact, is true. lol.

In the specific case that started this discussion (I had to look back at it), Havok was merely stating that Jean and the Phoenix "reunited" after it left Echo. Which is pretty much what happened, and yet you felt the need to "correct" them. That's when, imo, it gets condescending for you to sort of randomly insert your interpretation and argue against what doesn't need to be argued against. Because they did not in fact make a whole argument about Jean and the Phoenix being separate that contradicted yours, they just offered a simple bare bones explanation of where the Phoenix has been from Echo to now to someone who was behind. I imagine he most likely has read those panels you posted, as do I, and as do most Jean fans in here

If Jean's identity as and relationship to Phoenix wasn't a point of contention, why was it necessary for you to accuse me of imposing my "interpretation" on or condescendingly "correcting" anyone when all I did was post recent panels and a quote by Phoenix's creator? It seems to me that the only reason my thoughts would be viewed as troublesome is if someone was trying to argue that Jean and Phoenix do not share an unbreakable bond. Ultimately, there have been Phoenix hosts throughout Jean's history while she was manifesting and denying her Phoenix nature, and time and again, it has been stated and proven that this neither contradicts nor detracts from her identity as such.

So yes, you can say what you want and "add the context" whenever you see fit, but I'm just saying as someone who's in the same fandom and forum talking about the same characters and stories why I think that it's sometimes uncalled for, especially when it's so often. Though this is something I've thought about before, if the person in question didn't get annoyed I probably would have looked past it, but since they did it felt like it wouldn't be out of nowhere for me to mention it.

I really appreciate your thoughts and opinions, Wiccan, and I admire you for coming to Havok's defense, especially because I know how overbearing I can be. Nonetheless, I simply will not stop using Jean's history to highlight how much Phoenix is hers, and she is Phoenix's. It's not simply my opinion or interpretation but, at this point, an important fact central to her mythos.

Yeah, the definitely both earned solo titles.

I agree.

I’d prefer to see Storm and Jean as part of the teams. I’ll definitely give Storm’s solo a try, but Jean’s will depend on the premise.

I wouldn't be surprised if this happens!

[Dthirds3]

That's what I think as well - since they're scattered across the country, Laura might be acting as a hero in New York, maybe interacting with other heroes, with Spider-Man or Daredevil, for example. Maybe there's going to be attempt to repeat Taylor's All New All Different vibe, or something like that.

If they treat her like they do Daredevil. We're in for a dam good run

[SturdyMike89]

Question is, which book will have Hellion? One, or both?

Exceptional X-men of course. I'm not kidding that is actually one of the books coming out.