The Scenery of Pterror Over Paris

There are several things that I enjoyed enjoyed about The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec: Pterror Over Paris - a historical thriller, a female heroine, danger, and a monster wrecking havoc over a community's citizens. However, what I couldn't get over was the background art of the comic.

While looking at colleges during high school, I seriously considered applying to a handful of arts schools because I had a dream of working for the Walt Disney Animation Studios creating the background art for their films. I loved how the settings in the Disney films could transport audiences to completely different worlds thanks to the setting's extraordinary detail.

Just like in the Disney movies I grew up with, Pterror Over Paris took me into the streets and buildings of Paris during the 1910s.

The images in the comic are much more realistic than any other comics we have read in class thus far. In my opinion, the more realistic images serve as a nice juxtaposition with the comic's bizarre story of capturing a loose pterodactyl killing innocent victims in victorian Paris. The images help ground the story. By placing the science-fiction tale in a historically accurate setting, the reader is more willing to follow along with the plot. 

For me, the detailed images of Paris is what kept me reading. At times, I found the plot confusing (like who is this laughing guy that keeps popping up?) but I didn't mind. I just wanted to keep studying the pictures. 

The Freakin' World is a Damsel in Distress

I've had this thought that's been bothering me: if superhero comic books are about displaying the powers of the protagonist... doesn't that mean that they almost always have to be fighting someone? The world always has to be ending? Aren't they always saving something or someone?

I like watching action movies/TV shows (e.g. X-Men, Justice League) or reading some epic fantasy/sci-fi story (e.g. Harry Potter), and I think part of why we like this kind of thing is that we get to be part of that journey; part of something greater than ourselves; something meaningful.

BUT from what I've seen so far in our class, superheros and comics are rebooted or recreated in some fashion so that they end up doing the same thing, no? Who wants to see Batman or Wonder Woman have a normal life with normal problems? No, no, that just wouldn't be possible because the world is always going to have problems. I get it, especially since Batman is the only "superhero" in his city of Gotham, he is the only one who has to deal with the constant problems that a city has - crime, violence, etc. BUT BUT I want to see comic artists/writers try to write stories where the protagonist has to deal with our normal human crap. At least something before the world needs their help or maybe even after they just saved the world! Can you imagine?

Focusing on X-Men, they have such great appeal:

• identities grow with their powers
• team/family/community - need each other 
• represent the minority, the hated, scorned 
• it could be anybody, natural/unnatural of attainable powers

I think that this is almost representative of what could be real in our world. The idea that the X-Men go to a school to learn how to control their powers and build up their potential is realistic. It leads to the possibility of them trying to just learn how to live their lives in their world that is similar to ours. I know that it isn't the main focus in the comics but I love the scene where the old X-Men have decided to leave the school:

I'm guessing after they leave, the comic puts its focus on the new X-Men and a new adventure. The idea that the old X-Men are trying to live their lives is intriguing though. Honestly, they are my favorite out of all the Marvel characters/movies. I had watched most of the Marvel films before this class began and none of them were quite as appealing as X-Men. Most of the characters come into play when they are teenagers who just learned about their mutant abilities, trying to figure out who they are, how to live a decent/happy life, how not to hurt those they care about. 

They can just expand upon scenes where the characters are conflicted over their "gifts," or how their abilities play into a normal day-to-day life. Does it help or hinder them? Do the protagonists get bored with normal life? Or do they get bored and tired with the fact that they have to constantly save the world/universe? (*gasp* think of the Incredibles! although they do go on to save the world... but that's another conversation!) 

The Astonishing X-Men

As a huge fan of the X-Men films (save for Brett Ratner's atrocious addition to the franchise), I was excited to dive into the source material.  For me, the results were mixed.  I was glad to see that the series did not begin as a Wolverine-centric property.  Whereas the films have always earned criticism for their reliance on Hugh Jackman's character, the 60s era X-Men, and even the later issues featuring Wolverine, are much more of a team affair.  I was, however, disappointed by the lack of diversity amongst the first iteration of the team.  I know it's probably anachronistic of me to expect differently.  But, I expected such an 'editorial' comic to feature a slightly less white group of heroes. Further, the first issue does little to establish the outcast status of Professor X and his students.  X himself mentions that society might fear the X-Men, but the students themselves do little to reflect on this.  I know that a single issue could not have packed in multiple origin stories, but it's weird to see the students without any explanation of how they came to the Academy. One of my favorite things about the films is that the characters generally operate as vigilantes. They work in the shadows to protect a world that has effectively abandoned many of them.  I did like that Lee and Kirby depicted the characters as regular teenagers.  The intersection of everyday worries and global catastrophes is an important aspect of the films (particularly the first two and First Class) and I liked seeing it here.

The 70s comics manage to right pretty much all of my gripes with the earlier ones.  Professor X's extended trip around the globe is what the films trained me to expect.  Second Genesis also features a far greater degree of editorialization.  X takes pains to assure each of his recruits that they will be working for people who may "fear them" or "hate them."  The comic also shows the reader the various ways in which mutants have coped, or failed to cope, with life amongst humanity.  Though the splash-pages of the 90s X-Men comics are obviously indebted to the earlier ones, I found them less appealing.  To me, the pages tended to look cluttered.  The character designs also take a turn for the bizarre.  Comic book characters have always looked exaggerated.  But, in issues like Fallout they look less like pin-ups or carnival strong-men and more like the victims of bizarre medical experiments.  Magneto's thighs and Jean Grey's buttocks in particular were a little much.  The shading on the character's faces also tended toward the grotesque.  Fallout in particular reminded me of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics I made the mistake of reading in the early 00s.

Professor X, It's all in your head.

Reading the first edition of X-Men, then moving on to the other episodes, it was interesting to see Professor X's role change. One really intriguing difference that stood out between the first and later editions was that in the beginning of the first book, Professor X's dialogue to the entire student body as well as to individuals, is all done through his thoughts (represented through thought bubbles). I get that his power is being telekinetic and having these great mental powers, but it doesn't really make sense why he cannot talk directly to the other X-Men in the beginning of the story. Then, unceremoniously on page 21, he says "You have mastered reading my thoughts perfectly and now I shall return to normal speech communication". This scene comes off as lazy and nonsensical, why does he randomly switch? It's hardly a test for them as Professor X is the greatest mind in the world.

I think the my main issue, which this instance comes about because of, is that there is really no origin story to this first issue of X-Men. It just starts with describing who Professor X is and giving names for his students, no more information about who they are or how they got their powers is provided. For me, this was an unsettling start to the series, as I have some general knowledge as to how the X-Men got their powers but was saddened that there was no origin stories about them from the beginning. Was this because they Lee didn't have a reason for them being the way they were yet? Was the origin thought of later? I genuinely don't know the answer to these questions. I do know, however, that the first issue of X-Men diverges greatly from the other first issues of superhero comics we've read in class with the lack of origin story right at the beginning. An origin story would have been a great time to introduce real scientific knowledge about genes and mutations, a la Tezuka.

Text

 The X-Men comic books are very text heavy. On certain pages the text is half or more than half of the panel. There are multiple conversations happening at once; it can be slightly overwhelming when trying to follow the flow of the story and conversation. Although it is text heavy, it’s nice to see a progression in dialogue. There is more communication between the characters and through their communication we can see their personality, attitude and motivation unfold. In particular how the words and sentences are formed and spelled; providing a voice for the character. Throughout the story you can see a variation and rhythm in the tone and purpose of the text. The text creates conflicts and tension between the characters. The conversation shared between the characters keeps the readers on their toes just as the illustrations do with the actions.

"X-Men"- the Combination of Editorial and Superhero Comic Techniques

As acknowledged in Tuesdays class, "X-Men" marked a shift in superhero comics, which developed the medium as a mode of editorial. As we saw in the podcast and as is reinforced in the introduction of "X-men Fallout!," aspects of editorial stemmed in large part from the allegorical manifestation of conflicting political ideologies in Professor Xavier and arch-rival Magneto. These two central characters are reminiscent of Martin Luther King Junior and Malcolm X, parallels, which would have been more definitive for audiences of the era in which the comic was conceived. While this editorial facet makes it so that "X-Men" is ephemeral, the classical aspects of the Superhero genre, make it so that the comics are also timeless. The diversity in characters and the progressive representation of female superheroes coincide with modernist views and therefore, whereas "X-Men" may have been a somewhat radical editorial at the time in which it was conceived, it persists in its timeless entertainment.

I was surprised by how explicit some of the editorial content was. For example, on page 57 of "X-Men Fallout!" from 1991, Magneto versus Xavier find each other in a face-to-face battle. Magneto describes his reluctance to fight Professor Xavier and his students, who, like Magneto, are also mutants. Nevertheless, he explains that he must fight them in order to overpower the humans and thus secure the existence of the mutant race. Professor Xavier describes that even in victory, Magneto's success will be tainted by the consequences of his violence. He very literally states that the those who die as a result of Magneto's violence will taint the ensuing freedom of the mutant race. The overtness of scenes such as this one demonstrate the obvious editorial of the "X-Men" series, which is vastly different from the subtle commentary offered by previous superhero comics.

Please, Don't Flatter Yourselves

From most of what I've read upon and people who I have interacted with, everything and everyone is screaming "X-Men is the best creation ever!" Even some of the recreations of the old classical comics get unusually consistently high ratings on reviews (I hope that this is grammatically correct). If you don't believe me, take a look for yourself on Comic Book Round Up:

http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/all-new-x-men

Yes, I do admit that Stan Lee is a super star in the comic world. And I would go cray-cray with excitement if I ever do actually interact with the genius himself (call me a stalker: I know where his workshop is). And all the wonderful and breakthrough points that are in the X-Men just fills my little heart with joy, but let's not kid ourselves here. It is not as glorious as people make it sound. Not the first few articles that is.


Let's talk about what makes this series such an icon:
1, The search for identity. The costumes/uniforms that they wear- it represents a persona. Its is an alter ego ego - Hold up! What is the ego? The whole entire series is about mutants trying to find themselves and find peace with the other "normal" humans. Sound familiar? Feel attached? Well that would especially feel true when you're a human of color and a confused teenager. Either or both.
2. Hidden symbolisms.
Professor X = Martin Luther King Jr.
Magneto = Malcolm X
3. The independent and strong women: Jean Grey
(I've got a lot to say about this but for know, okay)
4. Special guest : the Avengers. Just a simple challenging the authority and OLDER GENERATION of superheroes. You gotta do what you gotta do when you're a teenager, But not only that, the comic breaks the idea that the hero is often glorified and lives a happy and care-free life. These are young heroes are outcasts of society, and wish to be normal. Even their leader, Professor Xavier, is disabled, unlike the stereotypical running around all jolly, healthy, and all-able.
5. THE ART WORK: I don't think that I need to emphasize on that.



Hey, that's all great! BUT THIS BLOG ISN'T OVER.
Really? Is Jean really THAT independent and strong? Is everyone THAT confused about their identities? Are they REALLY challenging the Avengers? I really don't think so.

Jean, from my opinion, is basically a natural-born telekinesis version of Ultra Women (aka Lois Lane with stolen Superman's powers). She may not still be the damsel in distress, but she sure is sexualized- perfect Ms. America body with flawless hair and super flattering clothes, being chased around and pursued by all the boys, confused about her ROMANTIC feelings, and "oh how I wish xxx" cr*p. She may be still be a teenager, but she sure seems like a ditz. (Btw, just wondering, if a woman is in X-Men, does that make her a "X-Woman"?)
The other X-Men? Well................... just being cheesy. I don't see them fussing over wanting to be normal over and over again.
And about the Avengers... If anyone is a super big comic-druggie like myself, you would know that there are other books that actually do feature the Avengers fighting against the X-Men. And that was published in 2012. If that was war, then this is not even a cat-fight. More like little kids bickering and screaming over who's bigger and better. How is it that they actually challenge the Avengers? In the end, they all came with the same purpose. So why not throw in a fight just to get some action going on?

In the end, no hard feelings. I still enjoy really the comics and things, but deep down I'm still a hard core DC fan. Just can't help but LUV the Justice League. Feel free to disagree with me!

Why the Face?

One of my biggest complaint about Superman and even Wonder Woman was their author's attention to detail when it came to drawing faces of their characters.  In Superman, I sometimes went several panels before I realized that the character I had been staring at was Superman!  However, I noticed a change in this style in X-Men.  Kirby give much more detail to the faces of each character.

For example, the close up of Magneto's face when he is taking over the army base in our first reading. Kirby spends a lot of time on the facial features of his characters compared to some of the earlier comics we read.  According to Scott McCloud, this means that we, as the readers, have a harder time identifying with these characters, but I don't think this is true.  I think that Kirby meant to put human (or mutant) faces to X-Men's human characters.  Since there characters seem much more like real people, realistic faces actually help the reader empathize with them.

The Villain's Voice

The Villain's Voice

     Much like many of the other comics we have read thus far this semester, The X-Men comics draw relevance to the socio-political events that occurred during the time of their production. For example, many argue that Professor X and Magneto are an allegory to the civil rights movement: Professor X aims to use his and his students' superpowers for the good of the world, much like King's desire to create peaceful coexistence, while Magneto intends to use his powers to control the world much like Malcom X's desire to use force to segregate the population.

    Among the many innovative qualities of the The X-Men, what I found most interesting about the series is the way the writers give voice to the villains. By drawing connections between Malcolm and Magneto, for example, the series gives the villains a voice in a way we have not seen before. In previous comics we have read, the evildoers have always been unrelatable and seem to only do evil just for the sake of being evil -- serving simply as a reason for the hero to be a hero. In the X-Men, however, we are able to dive deeper into the intentions of the villains and, one might argue, even develop a form of sympathy for them and their cause. Furthermore, while this is not true for all of the villains in the series, the more relatable villains adds to the notion that The X-men was the first comic to introduce real character-development.

     

X-men vs. Avengers

To me, the X-men have always felt like more of a team than the Avengers. Besides their coordinated outfits, the X-men train, learn, and live together. While the Avengers feels like a bunch of individual characters thrown together whose powers come from very different sources, the X-men all gained their power through genetic mutations. The X-men even have a coach-type figure, the wise Professor X. Through their banter and horse play in the first comic we can see how much of a family they are like. This is not to put down the Avengers, but as a group the X-men are more relatable. The X-men, as we have discussed, are a group of outsiders, while the Avengers are a combination of the “Earth’s Mightiest Heroes.” The X-men can appeal to all of us who have ever felt like we didn’t fit in. The X-men show how even those who society rejects can still make a positive impact. This sends a powerful message that when we work together we can make change even if we are not embraced by the mainstream. The Avengers show again how the strong will be strong. If the two teams were really to fight to the finish (at risk of sounding corny) it would be a close, as we saw in X-men #9, and I would argue really could go either way easily.

Blurred Lines: Dimishing the Secret Identity

In sharp contrast to the clear distinction drawn between Superman and his secret identity, Clark Kent, the everyday lives of the X-Men are far less removed from the use of the powers and performing of heroics. These differences alter the representation of the X-Men to the audience, and raise interesting implications about the role of abnormalities in everyday life.

In Superman, readers can see Superman struggle to separate his life as a hero and his life as a civilian. As a result, Superman requires two identities keep his powers separate from his everyday life, and this dual identity indicates that personal abnormalities should be kept separate from normal life.

Such is not the case for the X-men as, from chapter one, the presence of their powers heavily influences their daily lives. While they do continue to wear costumes and take on code names when performing heroics, the introduction of a school for mutants allows the various powers of the X-Men to remain present in their everyday lives through their schooling. This not only diminishes the distinction between the superhero X-Men and the student X-Men, but also demonstrates to readers that, although their powers are abnormal, their powers do not need to be kept separate from the normal elements of their life. This matches nicely with the information on the 60's that we learned from the video clip since the social movements of the time revolved around accepting the presence of differences in society.

The Question of the X-Men: Acceptance or Destruction?

Even before reading these comics for class, I had been reading X-Men comics and watching X-Men cartoons on TV since I was young.  And I had always considered them to be representative of the oppressed or minority identity.  When the X-Men were reflecting a racial minority struggle or part of the LGBT movement,  they were someone the underdog could identify with.  But not just an underdog in the sense of the misunderstood, bullied Peter Parker.  No, these underdogs were a group fighting against evils and also their own government and other organizations that wanted them to simply cease to exist.   Being misunderstood meant something different to the X-Men than it did to the lonesome Peter Parker.  Their form of misunderstood had the potential to result in mass extinction and fear of being harmed.  People were genuinely afraid of them, and wanted to harm them because of their differences.  Their situation was much more similar to how the public reacted to the Stonewall Riots in New York and the marches during the Civil Rights movement.  Fear mixed with anger and intent to harm.  The X-Men suddenly became the representatives for oppressed groups.  The government was no longer the good guy when it hunted our heroes.  And even within the mutant community themselves there were factions and disagreements that split them rather that united them in a common cause for peace and equality.
The page just before the "Fallout" issue of the comics posted on blackboard poses the question "should mankind strive to live in harmony with those who are 'different,' or should we consider them enemies and seek to destroy them?"  Unfortunately, this is still a question that is constantly rephrased and spoken again and again to this day.  Whether people come from different backgrounds, religions, races, cultures, sexualities, etc., some people will always find a reason to demonize, target, and hate another group.  The world definitely still needs the X-Men to teach each future generation that differences and misunderstandings do not have to result in hate and division.  The X-Men preach acceptance and understanding, which we can all benefit from and should live by each day.

View Through The Glass

I’d like to get back to the conversation that we had on Tuesday about that opening panel of the first X-Men comic. Seated within the study of “an exclusive private school in New York’s Westchester County,” Professor X faces left in profile-view, framed perfectly by the panes of a large window. Backlit by a single circle of yellow light on the wall behind him, the Professor is depicted in an unassuming-yet-curious way. Beyond any talk of his placement in a White House doppelganger and what that means, or the visual frontloading which establishes the earlier X-Men’s focus on his character, Professor X’s setup in this panel speaks worlds for the message which this series tries to convey. As a paraplegic, Charles Xavier is different from those around him. Despite his status as a human (a mutated one, sure, but human nonetheless), he is deemed less-able than others because of his inability to walk and move around with ease. Within the reality of this comic series, however, he is one of the most powerful beings on the planet. By positioning Professor X in the panel as he is shown from the shoulders-up –where readers cannot make assumptions about his physical (or telepathic) abilities—Stan Lee and Jack Kirby essentially allow readers to begin imagining a universe in which all people are capable of super things, regardless of their physical differences. Whether there are mutations in their genes, or the loss of mobility in their limbs, every main character in the X-Men reality is on a level playing field, and this panel drives that home.      

Human-Mutant Relations

My only experience with the X-Men is through the movies, so I was interested to see their comic book origins. In the X-Men movies at least, there is a clear focus on mutants as social outcasts that are considered dangerous and a threat to human safety. In the comics we read for Tuesday, this message is not quite as clear. In the first issue, the X-Men are immediately received by the military base that is under attack, no questions asked, and when the job is done, the humans thank them, with no mention of fear. In the issue where they meet the Avengers, the only nod to human-mutant relations is when the X-Men run into a man, scared after seeing the Avengers, and scare him away when Angel reveals his wings. There is no mention of any kind of recognition of mutants by humans or any threat that humanity poses to the X-Men. 

In Chris Claremont’s X-Men, the issue is immediately brought up. As Forge and Iceman point out, even though the X-Men serve to protect humans, humanity fears mutants and their power, who they believe “[diminish] the rest of humanity, ordinary homo sapiens”(43). They see a future “where they’re destined to be perpetual victims, innocents caught between beings whose powers they barely comprehend and haven’t a hope of matching”(43). In this incarnation of X-Men, the X-Men are much more wary of humanity’s distrust and fear of mutants.

Why Age Matters

The rise of the Silver Age in comics provided a fresh perspective on the graphic novel in many ways, which the X-Men comics showcase well. There are larger stories for females, a more diverse cast of characters is introduced, and most of all, the range of featured ages shifts. Rather than once again focus on adults in the workforce and their alter egos as both the Justice League and Avenger groups do, the X-Men comics primarily features children and teenagers as the heroes of the day. Certain contrasts can be made between the adult and teenage supergroups, but one that I thought was particularly interesting was the dialogue.

Superhero comics are known for corny dialogue, that at times seems cringeworthy when coming out of an adult's mouth. Superman especially set the trend for gearing writing towards children through adult characters, which often led to childish and immature sounding dialogue and speech patterns. In the X-Men comic series, the style of dialogue does not change drastically- the mouthpieces do, and reducing the age of the characters that say these cheesy lines makes the lines themselves seem less hokey because this time, the intended audience and the characters are closer in age. This is brought to light in the Avengers/X-Men crossover, as we have both adults and teenagers speaking in very similar manners, but the style clearly is suited towards the teens. In many ways, the X-Men comics show a progression from the original superhero comics to the ideal that the original comics were trying to encompass.

Social Commentary: The Importance of Setting in Stan Lee's "The X Men"

During class, it was noted that from the very first panel of "The X Men" (Stan Lee, 1963) that the story is set in the world of reality. There is no Gotham or Metropolis. Instead, Professor X's mutant academy is located in "New York's Westchester County" (which, for those who are wondering, is not a fictional county at all). There seems to be some sort of significance - in my opinion at the very least - in setting a fantastical, fictitious story in a realistic, everyday setting. This is especially the case if we keep in mind comicbookgirl19's analysis of the socio-political climate of the U.S. surrounding the creation of X Men.The YouTuber asserts that strong thematic correlations exist between the story of the X Men and important social and political movements of the time. From the very first issues documenting human reception of the X Men (mirroring Martin Luther King JR and Malcom X's response to racism) to the second wave of the X Men surrounding the "island plot" (mirroring many people's emotional response to the Vietnam War), there exists a much more direct correlation between reality and the world of the comic than we have seen before. I believe X Men uses setting as a catalyst for social commentary through magical realism.

Similar

I went on to finish watching the you-tube video we saw in class on the epic history of the X-men, and the part that caught my attention was the idea that Professor X often lied or withheld information from the team in order to further a cause which he felt was important. For example there is a point where he sends a newer, younger team to save the x-men after they were captured by an unknown being on a island. They die in the process and the professor recruits a more mature powerful team on the same mission. After they are rescued the professor does not inform the team of their actions and the young-lings seem to have perished in vain. Another example was when the professor manipulates the training system for the x-men, when it was actually a robotic mutant that was trapped and powered the system. But the mutant finally breaks free and the professor is exposed to the x-men. Professor X explains that he took certain risks to further a bigger cause. The professor resembles Magneto in this situation because I feel that he too, does unrighteous things to obtain an objective. As long as he personally believes that his goal is the best resolution then he is right. The two may be similar in this sense.

Horseplay Isn't Funny

Superman defined the superhero genre with his debut in 1938. The X-Men added the discussion of problems stemming from power to the genre in 1963, among them the consequences resulting from the exercise of power.

Early on in X-Men #1 (page 6-7 in our pdf), the reader sees Iceman monkeying around using his superpower, defend himself using the same power and almost severely injure Professor X as a result of his reaction. The team leader Cyclops immediately steps in to lecture the youngest member telling him to "be more careful next time!" and "That kind of horseplay isn't funny!" (Lee 20).

The consequences introduced here are real. The bowling ball of Professor X's head and an actual one could have met, to disastrous effect. Where Superman previously exercised his powers to defeat baddies, he never seemed to consider the bystanders. He often used his powers in the same way that Iceman did, in order to show off or create an effect. He never had an authority figure examine his actions and deem them inappropriate.

This opens up a whole new field of study. Those who hold powers can now be questioned. Might does not equal right. We begin to wonder about the repercussions of allowing immensely powerful beings to exist in society. Certainly entities like Magneto exist in this universe. What if a mind reader/controller like Professor X were to crop up on the other side of Justice. Perhaps they don't have super power, but how acceptable can gaps in economic, social or political power be justified or abused?

X-Men allows readers to explore new worlds, untouched by previous comics and for that alone we can commend it. The interaction of super powerful figures working together, with some conflict adds depth previously unseen (at least within the readings assigned in this class).

I thought the Beast was blue?

Seeing the beast in his original conception was alarming. He wasn't the suave intellectual, blue Hank McCoy I expected. He was crass, all up in Jean's mug and most obviously not blue. The beast in his current form is the raw animalistic instinct paired with a pure desire for the pursuit of wisdom and understanding. A perfect concoction that needed time to be realized. It brings up the question: How finalized are characters when they are first introduced? Characters often take a shape of their own  like the beast becoming intellectual, or the campy batman gradually becoming tortured and dark. Comic book creators must be careful when setting up the backstory of their heroes when the contours of their characters are just beginning to be outlined. Do comics need a good excuse for the change in character, like in X-Men they simply said that Beasts mutation was still occurring, or can they scrap the past like in batman and invent an entirely new reason for his decision to become batman. (I think it was originally because a bat flew into his office window.) I don't think many of the characters had a backstory in the first issue of X-Men. It didn't seem like Magneto and the prof were old friends in X-Men #1, and Stan didn't reveal anything about the team's individual past. I don't know if the decision to not include backstory was careful so the characters could develop into themselves, or if Stan just needed an explosion of action to seduce the innocent readers. It's interesting to see that the characters slowly develop until they are cemented into the lore we cherish, and even then, there is still room for them to grow.

Physics? What's that?

As I was reading through the first issue of the X-Men, I realized that physics seemed to go entirely out the window. At multiple points in the comic, some of the basic laws of physics are violated. A few of these instances can be forgiven. Hank Prim dodging bullets by spinning around a wire at a high speed, for example. Ignoring the fact that spinning around the wire at a high speed would not decrease the mathematical probability of being hit by a bullet, spinning around a wire at high enough speeds to dodge a bullet would kill Hank. However, given that Neo dodges bullets in the Matrix, I think this error can be forgiven. Cyclops' not-laser-concussive-eye-ray-beam-thing, however, defies Newton's third law - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a not-laser-thing is forceful enough to send his enemies flying, Cyclops should theoretically either be sent flying as well. At the very least, like a cannon firing a shot, his head should rock back a bit after unleashing a blast. However, even this can possibly be explained by his visor. Perhaps there is some physics-defying device invented by Professor X installed in the visor. Okay, fine. But Magneto's complete lack of understanding of magnetism is entirely inexcusable. At one point, Magneto creates a magnetic shield around himself, claiming that he simply changed his charge from positive to negative. Without going too into detail about the physics behind magnetism, I'll suffice it to say this: opposites attract and similar charges repel. Therefore, a negative charge would attract a positive charge and only repel another negative one. In this case, no excuse can be made; the X-Men simply got physics wrong. So in the wise words of the internet: Go home, Magneto. You're drunk.

Dialogue in 1960s X-Men

I found the X-Men to be refreshingly different from other superhero comics that we read, especially regarding the dialogue. The dialogue in the original X-Men was much more natural than in early Superman and Wonder Woman. Instead of internal monologuing and exposition, the X-Men banter and joke among themselves. The team's playfulness as they train reinforces their youth and might make them more immediately relatable to teen readers than Superman and Wonder Woman, who both are and speak like very formal adults. Dialogue in the X-Men had a very natural, easy flow that we are used to in contemporary comics and movies but was different than previous superhero comics (and Crime SuspenStories as well). The casual dialogue humanizes them and differentiate them from other superheroes and each other, while Superman and Wonder Woman at similar stages of continuity seemed wooden and very similar to one another.

Stan Lee's 100% Guaranteed Fool Proof Recipe for a Superhero Team

           Stan Lee's influence over the comic industry cannot be underestimated. However, even his creative outpourings were not solely unique. Many of the tropes engaged by Stan Lee came to be standard faire in the comic industry and in his own work. The Avengers and X-Men came out in the same year, 1963, from the same basic creative unit, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. While both achieved wide spread popularity and support, there is no doubt that the creators employed many of the same tropes within these twin works.
           Possibly the most obvious comparison is between the composition of the two teams. Lee and Kirby's creations fit into 5 simple categories.

1) The Monster Mash - Hulk and Beast
These two characters are perhaps the most obvious comparison. They are distinctly combinations of the human and the animal/other body. They are large, muscular and their skin changes color. (Even though beast only acquires his blue color later). They represent the strength on the team, the pure might. There is an almost gorilla-ish quality to both of them, distinctly melding the animal in ways other members of the teams do not. The Thing from the Fantastic Four also features the same character trope.

2) Man of Myth - Thor and Angel
In this case classical mythology is called upon to add depth and merit to the team. Much like in Wonder Woman, drawing on mythology gives the comic credence by establishing an ancient lineal history and a sense of otherworldliness at the same time.  By rooting down into historical figures of power the reader immediately has access to a reality where magical powers or mythical beasts exist. The connection to mythology cannot be underestimated, and the very visceral representations of gods and angels lends a sense of background to the comics.

3) Man Child - Ironman and Iceman
These two are perhaps the most different at first glance. They share a basic similarity in that they are both subsumed by another element when acting as a superhero, but beyond that they seem quite dissimilar. Tony is angry, standoffish and detached while Bobby is honest and emotionally accessible. However, they both maintain a childishness, even down to their nickname, Tony and Bobby. They cause emotional issues within the group without being the main romantic leads. The Human Torch from the Fantastic Four fits in really well with these two.

4) Intelligent Female Leader - Ms. Marvel and Wasp
The token woman would probably be enough of a trope to unite these two characters, but they are also remarkably similar in many ways. They are portrayed as being independent, empowered and highly educated, but also fashion forward and emotionally adept. The ride a fine line between being a fantastic representation of modern women and simply a fantasy in the form of a nonexistent female trope. They tend to be highly idealized in pretty much every aspect. They also are married to the following trope, The Broody Male Leader. The Invisible Girl completes the Lee trifecta.

5) Broody Male Leader- Ant Man - Cyclops
Once again, the two characters appear to be dissimilar in many ways. I had originally slated Cyclops against iron man, tech enabled and empowered super humans. However, I think below that, they serve a similar role in the eyes of the reader. They become the idealized male lead to pair with the idealized female lead. They are brooding, dominant male figures with the female companionship to prove it. Last but not least, Mr. Fantastic completes the Fantastic Four's Lee-Style Superhero group recipe.

Homo Superior: Identity in X-Men

All of the superheroes we have thus far encountered have superpowers by virtue either of being from a nonhuman race-- mythical Amazonian or extraterrestrial Kryptonian-- or have obtained their powers through some artificial means or act of fate. The X-Men are the first group of human superheroes with natural powers. Even the name X-Men evokes chromosomes or the double-helix of DNA. It's fitting that they go by homo superior, to distinguish themselves from homo sapiens. Of course, the presumption of superiority is obvious. Angel even goes so far as to say "Mistakes are for homo sapiens" as he accomplishes some dangerous feat. The overarching narrative conflict of the X-Men revolves around regular people being confronted with a human-yet-superhuman race of mutants. Insider-outsider dichotomy frames the whole of the X-Men mythos and is even reflected in the artwork, yet this separation is more complicated on the level of identification between reader and character.

Even from the first panel of X-Men Issue #1, the reader is placed on the outside glancing in at the world of the mutants. Visually and narratively, the story avoids placing the X-Men on display in an objectifying manner; we are clearly not here to gape at 'freaks of nature.' Yet we are on the outside. That line is drawn from the beginning. The other thing implied from the outset is that the mutants' separation from society is at least partly intentional-- the academy functions as a safe space, apart from human society, wherein the mutants can develop their talents. It is a self-imposed segregation with hopes of re-integration. As Professor X puts it, the mutants have to learn to use their gifts to benefit humanity. Given their superiority, the question that the mutants face is whether they feel as though being part of humanity and existing alongside humans would be beneficial or, in the case of Magneto and others, insulting.

This is far from the only question of dichotomous identity that the X-Men have to face. They also have to contend with the usual superhero issue of alter egos, keeping in mind that their powers are a part of their humanity as much as they are a part of their separation from humanity. To frame it differently, the X-Men have to hide their genetic otherness by emphasizing their genetic humanity. Mystique is a perfect example because she chooses any guise, any identity, so long as it is human enough to pass. The language of hiding or passing is a clear connection between the ingroup-outgroup narrative of the X-Men and the actual experience some of the readers might have.

From the beginning, the readers are almost poised to not identify with the X-Men: we are, after all, only homo sapiens. As much as superhero comics indulge power fantasies, they also draw attention to humans' literal powerlessness. With the X-Men, this is almost even more pronounced because their powers are natural and genetic; they cannot be obtained. Yet it is obvious that people are meant to identify with the X-Men and certainly do. The way that the X-Men universe constructs multi-layered identities and poses the question of how the characters should navigate identity in certain spaces and around certain people prompts something no other comic has thus far, and that is empathy. We cannot really empathize with Superman or Wonder Woman, though we might feel sympathetic to their plights. Empathy requires that we recognize both sameness and difference, not just one or the other, and X-Men accomplishes that through a sensitive portrayal of what it means to have conflicting identities.

More complexity in text

I personally liked reading Xmen series, because the characters and the speech balloons in Xmen series are more complex and interesting than those in the other comics. Unlike the speech bubbles in superhero comics that we have read thus far, the speech balloons in this comic aren’t just mere repetitions of the graphics, but rather are extensions of the graphics. Moreover, in Xmen #1, there are barely any caption boxes, because the explanations as to what is going on are demonstrated in the speech balloons through the dialogues, thus making the comic more engaging. The lack of caption boxes also puts the readers in the character’s perspective. When there are a lot of caption boxes explaining the scenes, the readers often read the comics in third person perspective. However, when the caption boxes are absent and the explanations are done through the dialogue, the readers can position themselves in the character’s point of view and learn more about the plot and the other characters.

I personally find the dialogue in Xmen very important and effective in character development. For example, by examining the dialogue, the readers can not only learn about the personalities of the characters by looking at how they talk, but also learn about the interpersonal relationships between the characters.

Do you have an X-Men Friend?

During Tuesdays class, there was a discussion on the topic: is X-Men more realistic than other super hero comics such as Superman and Wonder Woman? Some agreed that it was more realistic since it brought in dialogues that were more relatable compared to the previous works. In my case, I disagreed since I was used to the movies where the characters are described to have no differences in looks, and did not wear uniforms, at least for the first couple of movies. This though changed, however, as I looked back into X-Men. I realized that the key difference between Superman & Wonder Woman and X-Men was the portrayal of the identities of the characters. For Superman and Wonder Woman, the comic book series approaches readers by creating dual identities for the characters and purveying the idea that the super heroes could be anyone around you. In contrast, the characters in X-Men do not have fake identities in the society but live as part of the society and communicate with their own personalities. This way, the X-Men series is able to put across the idea that people with different characteristics, including super powers, are no different from anyone around you. These "mutants" do not have fake identities, unlike Superman and Wonder Woman. This distinctive delineations of characters in X-Men allow the readers to understand the characters with more empathy.

X-Men Costumes

One of the ways X-Men is unique is that they are a group of ordinary people (albeit with extraordinary powers). This change in pace, from a singular lone superhero to a group of people struggling with both everyday and world-threatening issues is a great one. This allows X-Men to be great in many ways, but what I noticed is that I had a hard time recognizing all the different characters- especially through the different issues, where more characters had been introduced and they were drawn in a different style.

What helped me is the costumes they put on- while out of costume the X-Men looked very average and I couldn't distinguish between one or the other, with their costumes I had little trouble. I think the relationship between costume and no costume plays an important role in discerning the identity of X-Men, and mirrors the issue between "normal" and "mutant" very well.

It is also interesting to note that while the characters look normal in real life, they feel like they belong in the world with their costumes on.

Brand References in X-Men

While reading X-Men (Lee, 1963) I was surprised to see explicit brand references. In comparison to the other comics we have read this semester this was the first time I noticed the mention of specific brands within a comic, and advertisements promoting something other than the comic itself. On page 16, panel 3 The Beast says, "Brrr! I don't mind ice cubes, but I like 'em in a coke, not ticklin' my arm!" making a direct reference to the soda, Coke. On page 20, panel 1 The Beast references the Harlem Globe-Trotters saying, "Right in the ol' pocket, kid! Hey, maybe we'll challenge the Harlem Globe-Trotters some day, eh?".

I wonder if the inclusion of specific products in the comic was an incentive taken by the comic artists to increase revenue through advertising, or if the mention of specific brands was a tool used to ground the story within the real world, similar to the story's setting in "New York's Westchester County" (15). Perhaps more generally, the mention of brands likely identifiable and appealing to children was a way to garner readership and make the X-Men increasingly humanistic and therefore relatable to audiences.

Creative panel usage and art direction

I appreciated reading these selections from the X-Men series because the story lines and characters are much more complex than those of the other superhero comics that we've read in class thus far.  The artistic directions of Jack Kirby and Dave Cockrum seem to really enhance these complexities.  Even though both artists have different drawing styles, the way they organize the panels are thoughtful and creative.  I think this page with Storm from chapter one of Second Genesis particularly shows off Cockrum's talent and eye for design.  The horizontal layout and movement of the wind in the top two panels beautifully juxtapose the vertical shape of the last three panels and the falling rain.  For me, these contrasts help portray the full scope of Storm's powers and ability to change the weather.  Another thing that I found provocative about this page was the way in which Cockrum drew rain.  The black and light blue lines drawn to mimic sheets of rain falling down are an incredibly clever way to draw something that doesn't actually have a color.  Many of the artistic techniques shown in these X-Men comics show how well-developed and evocative graphic novels can be, which I find to be an even further step away from previous superhero comics.

X-Men in Training

Personally, it is very interesting to see the X-Men going through a practice session in the first issue. It is a welcomed change from past superhero issues that we have read in class where the superhero (Superman or Wonderwoman) already have a complete grasp over their powers. Seeing the first members of the X-Men making mistakes and honing their powers through a practice session makes it more realistic and believable for me. After all, if people did manage to develop powers, they would presumably be untrained to the natures of their powers at first. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby did a phenomenal job of portraying the X-Men characters as untrained teenage superheros. Their general shenanigans between their team is a great depiction of what you would expect from a newly formed teenage superhero team. Also, portraying them as untrained and immature characters really humanizes them in a way we have not seen before in our past readings. I suspect that this method of portrayal makes them more identifiable to young readers going through puberty that are also still figuring out the extent of their capabilities.

Professor X

Reading the X Men comics was refreshing – not the usual, undeveloped, flawless superhero narrative we’re used to reading. Professor X particularly interested me. His mysterious past, his role as a professor, his being in a wheelchair, and his power provide for a complex character. A character like this would not exist in a Superman or a Batman. He is far too old and frail. However, in X Men, the professor’s age and disability make him the character he is. It is as if his handicap makes the audience recognize his heightened telepathic capabilities. I did a quick search on the different ways Professor X has been forced into a wheel chair. The accounts range from a vague childhood accident, to a motorcycle crash, to a boulder falling on him. Whatever the case, the unfortunate accidents undoubtedly shape him into the stoic, commanding, and honorary man he is now. He doesn’t want to fight evil and score a girl ­– rather, he wants to promote peaceful relationships between humans and mutants. He’s a family man. The evil-fighting patriarch. These progressive views, especially for comics at the time, draw connections between Professor X and MLK Jr, as mentioned in the podcast. Superman and Cat Woman, for example, are far too simple to incite such a comparison. Quite simply, Professor X is an unfamiliar, different type of superhero. This can be said with most other X Men characters. This leaves me with a few questions: how does the professor’s handicap fit in with his character’s traits? Would Professor X still convincingly play this role if he weren’t in a wheelchair?

The X-Men Family

As someone who has never read X-Men before the most striking aspect of the first comic was the almost familial relationship between the characters. Especially in the first few pages Cyclops, Angel, Iceman, and Beast act as though brothers with Professor Xavier functioning as the clear patriarch. The teenagers' playful treatment of one another is sharply juxtaposed with the reverence they have for Professor X . While the banter draws the reader in, the family like interactions of the unit seem likely to be connected to the Comic Code. Although Stan Lee and Jack Kirby depict a very non-traditional family, the respect and admiration shown to Professor X seems to exactly fit the Comic Code recommendations for how relationships between parents and children should be shown. X-Men clearly deals with many of the difficult issues of the time, but does so without challenging Comic Code standards.

Stan Lee's Presence in the X-Men

    X-Men is probably the first superhero-themed comic that appeals to me in a significant way. Heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman, though both cultural landmarks, are too simplistic for my taste. If I read a superhero comic, I want to delve into the protagonists' powers, back stories, relationships, etc. And I don't mind if all of this is complicated. Lee does not shy away from complication in his X-Men narratives and trusts his audience to keep up with the striking individuality of each character.
    Yet this trust has its limits. In X-Men #9 there are two instances where Lee drops the narrator in order to reveal pertinent information explicitly to the audience. On p. 196 of the work, there is a small orange box bridging the first two panels that clarifies what a "dust devil" is: "* Idiomatic name for Western desert dust storm ... Stan." Here Lee is not only aware of his own colloquialism, but uses his first name in order to achieve some type of familiarity with the audience. We move out of the grand, exciting, narrative voice and into a simple, person-person, conversational tone. Also, by having the box cover the gutter between the two panels, we get the sense that this statement is not in the comic but an addendum to it. This further breaks down the wall between audience and author. For me, this suggests that Lee is concerned not only with the clarity of his work, but with his audience's perception of him as co-creator. He does not wish to invoke any hierarchy of author over audience, so he speaks directly to them.
    The second instance of this narration break comes a few pages later when the Avengers arrive on the scene. While the two super squads are squabbling over who will actually get to fight the great and terrible menace of Lucifer, Lee adds a note that refers to an older Marvel comic, "* See F.F. #31 - - Stan!" (p. 202). As the first side note showed us a transgression of the space between audience and author, this one reveals a little more of Lee's motivation. Most notably, I think, the exclamation point that finishes the note suggests Lee's need to showcase the levels of interplay in his works for Marvel. I think it is safe to assume that "F.F. #31" is Fantastic Four #31, a comic written by Lee, where the Avengers and Fantastic Four clash. Lee does not expect his audience to get this reference right off the back, hence the note, but he wants to explicitly state his level of commitment to the complexities of his work. In this way, he is allowing both avid readers and newcomers to access the beautiful interplay superhero comics can utilize. As I said before, he destroys the hierarchy of author/reader, but he also destroys any hierarchy within a readership by making even minuscule references accessible to all.