Was AoU's Wanda just Disney's answer to the superior Jean Grey?

[gurkle]

You're the first person to mention introverted (I said the same thing by phrasing it differently as being wallpaper, but I wasn't trying to paint her utter lack of personality as her main personality trait so I'll give you credit).

I'm not the first person to mention "introverted," you're just not looking in the right place. There's even an article from Marvel's '70s in-house fan magazine, FOOM (by Defenders writer David Anthony Kraft) about this aspect of her personality.

And again, "introverted" and "reserved" are personality traits, not the absence of them.

Quicksilver's sister. Magneto's daughter (once upon a time). The Vision's wife. Wonder Man's crush. Member in good standing of the Avengers (once upon a time). Nothing about her though. I'm not a fan of the character, but not because I haven't given the character a fair chance. I've read probably more comics with her involved (I'd say starring, but that'd be a ridiculous statement) than most comic fans I know. I'm not speaking out of ignorance of who the character is or was. It'd be easier for a fan's narrative to think so, but it's just not true. If I were a fan of the character I'd direct my anger not at someone like myself for pointing out her flaws, but towards the company and the writers/editors who've allowed her to exist for over 50 years without any significant development. Kamala Khan is a more nuanced, fleshed-out, and interesting character than the Scarlet Witch. And she's existed for about 2 years. Whose fault is that? Not mine.

The thing is, no, she's not more nuanced and fleshed-out and interesting, she's just easier to sum up quicker and not defined by her relationships to men. You just seem really angry that people don't accept your rules that a character must be easy to sum up without reference to other characters, but it just ain't so. Otherwise Quicksilver would be more popular than his sister, because he has a personality that's easy to sum up. But while I love Quicksilver, he wasn't very popular until Days of Future Past.

I don't think you're ignorant of the character, she just doesn't fit your criteria for a good character, which is fine. What keeps happening is that you demand everyone else abide by your idea of what makes a good character.

[idisestablish]

So the whole premise of this comparison is that Wanda's powers are described as telekinesis? I guess Cosmo the Space Dog is another ripoff. I mean, their backstories are different sure, but if you read their power description, it's basically the same. This is hilarious.

[CSTowle]

Sorry; I'm not going to conform to a set of "rules" that you're not conforming to as well and that I don't agree with.

And I've already explained a few facets of Wanda, which require an amount of explanation about her powers. I forgot to mention previously, however, that Quicksilver is arrogant and hot-tempered because of his powers. So...yet again...you're not allowing for 1:1 comparisons.

You're not going to conform to a (very, very simple) set of rules for one reason: you can't. How do I know this? The easiest way to put me in my place would be to do the following: sum up the essence of the character of Wanda Maximoff without mentioning powers or relationships (if you'd like it even more simple, major personal relationships). The same way I've done with half a dozen characters surrounding her with no difficulty at all, the way most people without trying could do for characters that have existed a small fraction of the time she has. As to Quicksilver's personality being a function of his powers, give proper credit to Peter David for that. The Flashes aren't like that (and they're on another scale of power level), so that's unique to Pietro.

I'm not the first person to mention "introverted," you're just not looking in the right place. There's even an article from Marvel's '70s in-house fan magazine, FOOM (by Defenders writer David Anthony Kraft) about this aspect of her personality.

And again, "introverted" and "reserved" are personality traits, not the absence of them.



The thing is, no, she's not more nuanced and fleshed-out and interesting, she's just easier to sum up quicker and not defined by her relationships to men. You just seem really angry that people don't accept your rules that a character must be easy to sum up without reference to other characters, but it just ain't so. Otherwise Quicksilver would be more popular than his sister, because he has a personality that's easy to sum up. But while I love Quicksilver, he wasn't very popular until Days of Future Past.

I don't think you're ignorant of the character, she just doesn't fit your criteria for a good character, which is fine. What keeps happening is that you demand everyone else abide by your idea of what makes a good character.

On the bolded, then by all means prove me wrong. Do as Star-Jammer "won't" (can't), sum her up simply. As to you not being literally the first person to use the term "introverted" to describe her, yes I get that people in the world may have used the term I was referring to this thread specifically. I'm sure there were much more in-depth breakdowns of characters in old fan-zines. And again I'd say they're only personality traits if they're explored and utilized as such. She hasn't seemed shy since the old Roy Thomas comics (far before I was born), she dropped that decades ago and again (and again, and again) has only served to use her powers until they go screwy and serve as an object for someone else's story. And again, while I'm not a fan I hate seeing this happen with any character (especially when the opportunity has been there for decades for anyone willing to build on her).

I pointed out in another thread that Peter David had her show up in an issue of X-Factor to hang out with her (former) sister at a Renaissance Faire and I enjoyed her more in that one issue than in decades of comics worth of appearances prior. Sadly I doubt he's going to ever write a Scarlet Witch series (though despite not being a fan of the character, I'm buying it in a second if by some miracle he does), but that shows what one writer with talent and the will to use it can do. One damned issue. It doesn't take much. Again, don't be mad at me. Be mad at those who could be doing something about it, even now (especially now, with her profile having never been higher).

[gurkle]

You're not going to conform to a (very, very simple) set of rules for one reason: you can't. How do I know this? The easiest way to put me in my place would be to do the following: sum up the essence of the character of Wanda Maximoff without mentioning powers or relationships (if you'd like it even more simple, major personal relationships).

I agree with you I can't conform to those rules. The character cannot be summed up without mentioning powers or relationships. And that does not make her a bad character, because those are not rules that define a good character. You make these rules, and when people can't conform to them, you insist you've won, except the rules do not exist for other readers.

You keep demanding that people describe the character without the stuff that makes her a good character - the fact that her complex personality emerges from seeing her do super hero stuff and interact with other characters. A character whose personality is independent of the story (powers and relationships) may be simpler, but not better.

On the bolded, then by all means prove me wrong. Do as Star-Jammer "won't" (can't), sum her up simply. As to you not being literally the first person to use the term "introverted" to describe her, yes I get that people in the world may have used the term I was referring to this thread specifically. I'm sure there were much more in-depth breakdowns of characters in old fan-zines. And again I'd say they're only personality traits if they're explored and utilized as such. She hasn't seemed shy since the old Roy Thomas comics (far before I was born), she dropped that decades ago and again (and again, and again) has only served to use her powers until they go screwy and serve as an object for someone else's story.

Her introverted nature has always been clear in every story, including that Peter David story you liked, where she's portrayed as socially awkward and not knowing how to have fun and loosen up until she gets a few beers in her.

As for "serve as an object for someone else's story," this is just not borne out by most of the romance stories, where if anything characters like Vision or Simon are her objects. (In volume 3 it takes until issue #23 for Vision and Simon to argue about her when she's not around. Most of the triangle is from her point of view and about its impact on her.) Again, you confuse being a romance character with being a weak character.

Many writers do, probably, have the same idea: Bendis undoubtedly didn't realize Disassembled was sexist because he thought the character was sexist to begin with. Today's writers tend to prefer characters who make wisecracks, punch people and have easy-to-sum-up-in-one-line personalities. Which is to say, boring characters.

[Star_Jammer]

You're not going to conform to a (very, very simple) set of rules for one reason: you can't. How do I know this? The easiest way to put me in my place would be to do the following: sum up the essence of the character of Wanda Maximoff without mentioning powers or relationships (if you'd like it even more simple, major personal relationships). The same way I've done with half a dozen characters surrounding her with no difficulty at all, the way most people without trying could do for characters that have existed a small fraction of the time she has. As to Quicksilver's personality being a function of his powers, give proper credit to Peter David for that. The Flashes aren't like that (and they're on another scale of power level), so that's unique to Pietro.

First, to the bolded: while in Pietro's case it might be a side-effect of his powers (I can't speak for my following example; any clarification?), he's not exactly the only hot-headed, quick-tempered speedster Marvel has.

And to the rest: It seems you like characters to have little check box lists (that might look like someone Christmas-Treed a multiple choice, bubble answer sheet) that can fit into nice summations that may or may not (probably not) tell the whole story. That's fine for you; it doesn't work for myself and (apparently?) Gurkle.

I want to have to explain why Wanda is sometimes unsure of herself, yet confident when the need arises. Why she would press on the fight, despite being shackled and chained previously (or press on against a villain she is out-matched against). A proud "mutant" who didn't hide behind a "school" who also had a marriage that was allegorical to inter-racial marriage. I want to explain why she loves her brother. Why she would attempt to forgive a man who treated her horribly. I want to explain why she is loyal to her friends and teammates, yet isn't afraid to call them out on their BS or help make tough decisions regarding their well being. A strong maternal instinct that, in hindsight, did lead to a bad decision or two. I also want to use all these screenshots of panels to explain to people why I love Wanda.

"Hot-tempered speedster who loves his sister" doesn't do Pietro much justice. Neither does "vengeful Holocaust survivor" for Magneto. It's nice, I guess, if you have 2 minutes to explain a character to someone. I don't want to only take 2 minutes.

At this point, we'll have to simply agree to disagree.

"Explain to me what strawberries taste like without using the words 'sweet' or 'juicy'"...

[CSTowle]

I agree with you I can't conform to those rules. The character cannot be summed up without mentioning powers or relationships. And that does not make her a bad character, because those are not rules that define a good character. You make these rules, and when people can't conform to them, you insist you've won, except the rules do not exist for other readers.

You keep demanding that people describe the character without the stuff that makes her a good character - the fact that her complex personality emerges from seeing her do super hero stuff and interact with other characters. A character whose personality is independent of the story (powers and relationships) may be simpler, but not better.




Her introverted nature has always been clear in every story, including that Peter David story you liked, where she's portrayed as socially awkward and not knowing how to have fun and loosen up until she gets a few beers in her.

As for "serve as an object for someone else's story," this is just not borne out by most of the romance stories, where if anything characters like Vision or Simon are her objects. (In volume 3 it takes until issue #23 for Vision and Simon to argue about her when she's not around. Most of the triangle is from her point of view and about its impact on her.) Again, you confuse being a romance character with being a weak character.

Many writers do, probably, have the same idea: Bendis undoubtedly didn't realize Disassembled was sexist because he thought the character was sexist to begin with. Today's writers tend to prefer characters who make wisecracks, punch people and have easy-to-sum-up-in-one-line personalities. Which is to say, boring characters.

On the bolded, I'd say that can't be where a complex personality emerges because she shares those things with every superhero ever. They all do superhero stuff, and they all (except some real misanthropes like Moon Knight and Rorschach) interact with others. And again, the easy to sum up one-line descriptions are easy for almost every major superhero or member of a superhero team in existence because there's usually something there to fill that one sentence. My point this entire time (borne out by the inability of any Scarlet Witch fan to do it, not just you) is that she's one of the few exceptions. Being able to do this is standard, not the sign of a boring character. The lack of the ability to do this would seem to be more in line with a character who is boring.

[CSTowle]

First, to the bolded: while in Pietro's case it might be a side-effect of his powers (I can't speak for my following example; any clarification?), he's not exactly the only hot-headed, quick-tempered speedster Marvel has.

And to the rest: It seems you like characters to have little check box lists (that might look like someone Christmas-Treed a multiple choice, bubble answer sheet) that can fit into nice summations that may or may not (probably not) tell the whole story. That's fine for you; it doesn't work for myself and (apparently?) Gurkle.

I want to have to explain why Wanda is sometimes unsure of herself, yet confident when the need arises. Why she would press on the fight, despite being shackled and chained previously (or press on against a villain she is out-matched against). A proud "mutant" who didn't hide behind a "school" who also had a marriage that was allegorical to inter-racial marriage. I want to explain why she loves her brother. Why she would attempt to forgive a man who treated her horribly. I want to explain why she is loyal to her friends and teammates, yet isn't afraid to call them out on their BS or help make tough decisions regarding their well being. A strong maternal instinct that, in hindsight, did lead to a bad decision or two. I also want to use all these screenshots of panels to explain to people why I love Wanda.

"Hot-tempered speedster who loves his sister" doesn't do Pietro much justice. Neither does "vengeful Holocaust survivor" for Magneto. It's nice, I guess, if you have 2 minutes to explain a character to someone. I don't want to only take 2 minutes.

At this point, we'll have to simply agree to disagree.

"Explain to me what strawberries taste like without using the words 'sweet' or 'juicy'"...

Again, I don't "like little checkboxes" (though kudos, instead of trying to deflect by moving goalposts you've chosen the time-tested strawman argument tactic). I just recognize that it's something simply done for any character worth the title who's had more than 40 appearances in superhero comics. That is, if there's an essence worth summing up to begin with. If it could be done, there wouldn't be several pages of deflecting and attempts to redefine the conversation.

If she had an essence worth summing up (aside from her worth as an object for other characters who are more defined) you're right, that wouldn't automatically make her a good character. But it'd be something. Right now she doesn't even have that. Unlike thousands of other characters in the Marvel U, most of whom don't have a fraction of her panel time. That makes me sad, and I'm not even a fan of the character. You could say the same for the Wasp, but she developed a personality aside from her love of fashion and flirtatiousness (though even back then, she could still be summed up like that so she still had one over Wanda).

[dragonmp93]

I just think that the Scarlet Witch ended up with telepathy and telekinesis because given that her powers are kind-of confusing, they simple used the movie portrayal of someone with a similar power level, i.e. Jean Grey.

[gurkle]

Again, I don't "like little checkboxes" (though kudos, instead of trying to deflect by moving goalposts you've chosen the time-tested strawman argument tactic). I just recognize that it's something simply done for any character worth the title who's had more than 40 appearances in superhero comics. That is, if there's an essence worth summing up to begin with. If it could be done, there wouldn't be several pages of deflecting and attempts to redefine the conversation.

You keep saying that, and it ain't so. The character can't be summed up simply because she is a complicated character who embodies contradictions - in other words, because she's a good character whose personality is complicated.

You keep laying down an arbitrary definition of what makes a good character, and then doing a victory lap when fans of this character admit she doesn't fit that definition. There's nothing wrong with having your own standards for what makes a good character as long as you don't march in and demand other people follow those standards.

[Mr. Brightside]

I like what this thread has become

[CSTowle]

You keep saying that, and it ain't so. The character can't be summed up simply because she is a complicated character who embodies contradictions - in other words, because she's a good character whose personality is complicated.

You keep laying down an arbitrary definition of what makes a good character, and then doing a victory lap when fans of this character admit she doesn't fit that definition. There's nothing wrong with having your own standards for what makes a good character as long as you don't march in and demand other people follow those standards.

And now two strawman arguments, the latest: I'm laying down the definition of what makes a good character. I'm not, I'm saying any run of the mill character should have a basic, easy to understand, recognizable and unique description for potential readers. This is pretty basic stuff. I'm arguing that she doesn't have that because nobody has bothered to flesh her out (again, aside from making her powers go nutty every so often and using her to further the stories of other, again usually male, characters).

I see no evidence of her supposed complexity, I see no contradictions (other than the fact that nobody has a handle on who this character is supposed to be, because she's not well-defined, so any two writers using her are likely to have two completely different takes on the character out of necessity). I see a character who is nothing without someone else attached or through the use of her powers as the means to a story's end.

She's been in the hands of some wonderful (and awful) writers over her 5 decades of existence. She's been a member of a major superhero team for most of that time. She's got ties to some very interesting characters and concepts (she bridges the X-Men, Avengers, and the Mystic Realms of Doctor Strange), and now has kids who have a high profile. There's no reason someone couldn't have been bothered to implant a personality. I can't think of another long-term member of a superhero team that has such a lack of personality and motivation (maybe Colossus or Martian Manhunter).

[gurkle]

And now two strawman arguments, the latest: I'm laying down the definition of what makes a good character. I'm not, I'm saying any run of the mill character should have a basic, easy to understand, recognizable and unique description for potential readers. This is pretty basic stuff.

Every run of the mill character can be summed up in a basic, easy to understand recognizable way. It's the good ones who are often hard to describe because they're complicated.

You keep demanding that a character's personality be summed up in this way, and saying she has no personality because it can't be summed up in a sentence. And people keep telling you that's not how good characterization works.

I see no evidence of her supposed complexity, I see no contradictions (other than the fact that nobody has a handle on who this character is supposed to be, because she's not well-defined, so any two writers using her are likely to have two completely different takes on the character out of necessity). I see a character who is nothing without someone else attached or through the use of her powers as the means to a story's end.

So don't see evidence of her complexity, that's fine! Just accept that her fans do and leave it at that. Comics reading is sort of an interactive game because there's so much we have to read into these characters, and so much we have to ignore (since every writer contradicts every other writer, we have to decide ourselves what's important). So different readers come away with different ideas of whether a character has a personality or not: some people think Superman is bland, others think he's not.

Everything's fine except that you keep demanding this character be evaluated in a way that has nothing to do with what her fans like about her. If you don't think a character has a personality if it can't be summed up in a basic easy-to-understand way, that's fine. But you want to "win" the conversation and prove that there are some kind of objective standards you're using. You're not, it's just that we look for different things in a character.

She's been in the hands of some wonderful (and awful) writers over her 5 decades of existence. She's been a member of a major superhero team for most of that time. She's got ties to some very interesting characters and concepts (she bridges the X-Men, Avengers, and the Mystic Realms of Doctor Strange), and now has kids who have a high profile. There's no reason someone couldn't have been bothered to implant a personality. I can't think of another long-term member of a superhero team that has such a lack of personality and motivation (maybe Colossus or Martian Manhunter).

Martian Manhunter is pretty good too, and for the same reason as Wanda - not much of a solo character because so much of his personality comes from contrast with the other members of a superhero team, being the outsider. (Vision is also similar to Martian Manhunter, obviously; one reason Wanda and Vision fit well together is they don't quite fit with the rest of their more extroverted team.) And their motivations are similar: a need to belong, a consciousness of not really loving the superhero game as much as the people around them, a suspicion of the human world they want to help.

I wouldn't say Colossus lacks a personality either; unlike them, he's pretty much a stock type, the naive nice guy who wants to make everyone happy but winds up making terrible mistakes in his love life, and who is always second-guessing himself (like his decision to leave home). Again, a character without a personality is someone who is interchangable with any other character, like Hal Jordan and Barry Allen were originally virtually the same person with different names and power sets (they do have personalities of their own now, I think). But pretty much every Wanda fan who saw the movie recognized that, despite the big differences between her and the comics version, it was true to her personality in broad outlines: compassionate but with an angry streak, seemingly the weaker of the siblings but the dominant personality in the relationship; emotionally fragile but not crazy; and set apart from the other characters by her basically serious, wisecrack-free way of looking at life.

[Tazpocalapse]

So has Marvel given a explanation as to why they went the mind control tk route instead of the magical aspect? I'm not buying the chaos magic being to hard to explain excuse. Or we don't want to introduce magic before magic guy has his movie out notion either.
Looks like they decided to play it safe.

[Wandacrystal22]

Well, Probability Manipulation is confusing for someone like me. So yeah, Psychic abilities is the easy way to go. I don't think Wanda is like Jeannie. Thank goodness Wolverine is not in the MCU or Logan would get in Wanda's pants. DO NOT WANT.

[dragonmp93]

So has Marvel given a explanation as to why they went the mind control tk route instead of the magical aspect? I'm not buying the chaos magic being to hard to explain excuse. Or we don't want to introduce magic before magic guy has his movie out notion either.
Looks like they decided to play it safe.

Well, given that the Avengers lack a telepath anyways..............................