Not sure if this is the right place for this but I thought it fit better here than starting a new thread!
I'm in the middle of a re-read of the Hickman era to date. After my initial read-through - I trailed off sometime during
X of Swords - I was a bit disappointed. However, I see a lot of excitement online and there were aspects of the new status quo that I really loved; plus, I've enjoyed a lot of Hickman's work before. I thought it was worth giving it another shot and so far, I actually feel more positive about it than I did initially. I decided not to bother with the titles I really didn't get along with the first time around, namely
Excalibur,
New Mutants,
Fallen Angels, and
Cable. I never tried
Wolverine,
Hellions,
X-Factor Way of X or
SWORD so I'll give them a go when I reach that point but right now I'm basing this on
House of X,
Powers of X,
X-Men #1-7,
Marauders #1-7,
X-Force #1-7,
X-Men/Fantastic Four,
Giant-Size X-Men: Nightcrawler, and
Giant-Size X-Men: Jean Grey and Emma Frost.
The things I enjoy:
- Regardless of your feelings about Hickman's run, it can't be denied that it's a truly fresh and innovative approach to the franchise.
- I think House of X and Powers of X are awesome introductions to the new direction. They're some of the best X-comics that have been released in a while.
- The expansive cast and writers that aren't afraid to lean on and develop more obscure characters. This stretches to the villains too - I'm glad to see the Children of the Vault back in play. I love the original arc where they're introduced and fight Rogue's ragtag squad.
- The imaginative uses/developments of powers, Krakoan organic technology and the mutant social structure.
- The variety of titles that are available. While they're not all my cup of tea, it's great to see the line as a whole thriving and so many teams and concepts being in play.
- The (albeit too few) moments where characters question the complex morality of new aspects of mutant society, such as the resurrection protocols and the Crucible.
Unfortunately, there are still a few elements that hinder my enjoyment.
I think the main thing is that I just don't get why most of the characters are acting the way they are when it comes to the fundamentals of Krakoa. I've seen earlier comments in this thread about how we shouldn't presume to know what every character would do in every situation and I agree, but where they are acting in ways contrary to how we expect them to based on years of previous reading, aren't we owed some sort of explanation? Isn't it forgiving lazy or overly plot-focused writing to simply excuse this?
For example, why did no one express any significant concerns about the amnesty? Why does Storm continue to have a problem with Emma Frost in the early issues of
Marauders when she seems fairly happy to sit on the Quiet Council alongside the likes of Apocalypse and Sinister? Why is Jean so willing to adopt violent tactics in
X-Force (something that isn't limited to her - see Storm stabbing an enemy in the eye right off the bat in
Marauders? Are we really expected to believe that Scott and Jean would have an open relationship - something that just feels like self-indulgent fan fiction to me? Why are Kate and Emma suddenly best buddies (and on a side note, did Kate's dialogue as she was drowned by Sebastian Shaw really sound like something she would say)?
None of our supposed heroes seem to have that much concern about the segregationist, potentially xenophobic/supremacist views that are seemingly becoming entrenched in Krakoan society. And when they're challenged on this - such as by Sue Storm in
X-Men/Fantastic Four - they don't seem to have a good answer. The reason for this is because the writers seem to just use the characters as plot devices at pivotal moments. They need someone to belittle and antagonise the Fantastic Four so sure, Cyclops can do that. They need someone to make a morally grey decision to raise the stakes so sure, Beast can basically become a villain. They need a sassy voice on the Quiet Council so sure, Sinister can become a caricature.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the 'whats' here...
I just feel like we've skipped over the 'whys'.
I find myself having to ignore these things to continue enjoying a lot of what I'm reading, which is easier to do when the story is solid...but too often things in the main title are too meandering. I also don't really have any interest in Arakko. I understand that Hickman can't just launch straight into the interesting stuff with Destiny, Mystique and Moira - but sometimes it feels like these threads have been forgotten completely, and worse, like they have been replaced with less interesting stories.
There's enough I'm enjoying and enough promise for me to carry on for now, at least to revisit X of Swords. I just hope we start seeing some reasons behind all of this strange behaviour soon.