Would you leave her if she left him to die? How an incisive writer got it all wrong: Steve Englehart, West Coast Avengers
Your husband gets separated from you on a time-travel adventure. You don't know if you'll ever see him again or make it home, but you make a friend- who drugs and rapes you. He fights you later, and slips off a cliff. Do you help him live?
Well, here's some additional context:
So, you and your secret agent-trained wife (or, you and your swashbuckling husband and AVenger team leader) get separated while traveling through time. Just as you've given up hope, you find her again. Stranded with only faith that her team will find her, she was betrayed, drugged and raped by a vigilante in the Old West. He was stupid enough to fight with her afterwards, fell off a cliff, and she let him dangle there and die.
And then the two of you break up because she let an enemy die whom she could've saved?
Apparently, you split off into two factions on different sides of an ethical dilemma. But I mean..
after all that, you break up?
First, I've got to give it up for the excellent Back Issue #110- Denny O'Neil and Daredevil fans in particular, but everyone who liked Marvel Comics Presents, would be well-served to check it out! I want to say STeve Englehart was a clever, nuanced scripter with a keen eye for making sense of existing plotlines and tying them to new events, so take this as from a fan.
I actually don't like Englehart's ideas about Mantis, as presented for the 80's in his interview, for some reason. Truly, I could see any creator who has a character they created with a strong voice developing a similar desire to bend entire plotlines around her. I rather liked her at the time with the Silver Surfer! It was his insistence on pairing her with Hawkeye next that turned me off. You also start to see a pattern of Steve constantly busting up existing relationships to insert Mantis. Or at least, with Vision and Scarlet Witch, trying.
What I don't get is, as you can read in Back Issue, he said he loved Clint (Hawkeye) and Barbara (Mockingbird) together, unique, quirky...but he broke them up over her, stranded via Time Machine in the Old West, letting her rapist fall to his doom! Bullshit! Let other Avengers assume their high horse position about killing/ not saving people, but Hawkie should've been like, "well, I'm glad you're OK, baby...at least he''ll never rape anyone else!"
Now of course, this is an argument, in part, with the proposed direction of a comic book, over thirty years ago now (wow). But like any story with timeless qualities, I feel it evokes a fun debate we can still enjoy today- not precisely about whether or not the writer should've kept his job (it was based on more than the one book), but on the fable's merits. Mythology's meant to explain wondrous phenomena and provide history and culture. But it's also intended to embody discussions we have about human behavior and the nature of the universe.
I think it's awesome Steve Englehart was generous enough to share his vision of where he wanted the strip to go. I'll add that the writer doubtlessly sees his job is to generate all the emotionally-involving drama possible. It's not enough to identify him with Clint and say that's his voice; he gave a voice, after all, to Bobbie and her cohort, too. So I think Steve's seeing both sides of the coin, and the nuances that emerge from each character's decision. It was great to dramatize the emergent debate about what sort of code regarding killing best suits the temperment of heroes, super or otherwise. I think, however, he put Clint on the wrong side of the matter. Why didn't he see even the headstrong archer- determined would-be leader, would-be paragon- more accepting of the difficult paradigm encountered by his team? I understand, the humane point of view is a necessary corrollary to preventing the more fascistic side of vigilantism embodied by these self-styled protectors. He may've been avoiding espousing a commentary of creating a version of the 'Thin Blue Line'- where teammate loyalty trumps moral idealism, because this person has to have your back in the face of danger. A good dramatist can empower more than one argument- can evoke variations. He did a good job with empowering the tne tensions of both answers. It could be that he just couldn't finish the job without ascribing the polar opposition to the team's resident husband and wife.
But when you factor in plans to pair Clint thereafter with Englehart's creation, Mantis- who I don't honestly see as a strict 'no-killing' proponent, either, despite her spiritually-evolved trappings- then suddenly, you've got me asking how strong did he think this love the writer professed to admire, really was.
But that's my critique- I suppose it's emotionally based on the failure of comics to build resilient romantic relationships between mature characters. I take it a bit personally!
I would've been more glad than anything in the world to get my wife back, my team mate, back, For one, I'd have been torn up I wasn't there to help her! And to that point, Clint never should've given Barbara any guff- he wasn't the one assaulted, and the Rider, rest assured, would've done someone else who couldn't fight back, that way!
I know Clint felt tremendous weight to measure up to the previous examples of leadership, and that did deserve representation in his thoughts. But he and Mockie, even with that unpleasant reality addressed and factored in as a sore spot one day, would've had a better story if they'd stood side-by-side with the person they love. |
I mean, isn't a relationship of that sort precisely the kind of value in life that makes all this derring-do matter? You're not just saving people's lives...you're saving them for their loved ones and relationships that are integral to those lives. People miss the real point of what matters, that's realistic enough. But I think this may've been myopia exacerbated by Mantis fever.
You can read Steve Englehart's side of this for yourself, in the pages of 1986-7 West Coast Avengers published by Marvel, and his graciously-provided interview in the excellent Back Issue #110, by TwoMorrows Publishing- on sale now!
Well, here's some additional context:
So, you and your secret agent-trained wife (or, you and your swashbuckling husband and AVenger team leader) get separated while traveling through time. Just as you've given up hope, you find her again. Stranded with only faith that her team will find her, she was betrayed, drugged and raped by a vigilante in the Old West. He was stupid enough to fight with her afterwards, fell off a cliff, and she let him dangle there and die.
And then the two of you break up because she let an enemy die whom she could've saved?
Apparently, you split off into two factions on different sides of an ethical dilemma. But I mean..
after all that, you break up?
First, I've got to give it up for the excellent Back Issue #110- Denny O'Neil and Daredevil fans in particular, but everyone who liked Marvel Comics Presents, would be well-served to check it out! I want to say STeve Englehart was a clever, nuanced scripter with a keen eye for making sense of existing plotlines and tying them to new events, so take this as from a fan.
I actually don't like Englehart's ideas about Mantis, as presented for the 80's in his interview, for some reason. Truly, I could see any creator who has a character they created with a strong voice developing a similar desire to bend entire plotlines around her. I rather liked her at the time with the Silver Surfer! It was his insistence on pairing her with Hawkeye next that turned me off. You also start to see a pattern of Steve constantly busting up existing relationships to insert Mantis. Or at least, with Vision and Scarlet Witch, trying.
What I don't get is, as you can read in Back Issue, he said he loved Clint (Hawkeye) and Barbara (Mockingbird) together, unique, quirky...but he broke them up over her, stranded via Time Machine in the Old West, letting her rapist fall to his doom! Bullshit! Let other Avengers assume their high horse position about killing/ not saving people, but Hawkie should've been like, "well, I'm glad you're OK, baby...at least he''ll never rape anyone else!"
Now of course, this is an argument, in part, with the proposed direction of a comic book, over thirty years ago now (wow). But like any story with timeless qualities, I feel it evokes a fun debate we can still enjoy today- not precisely about whether or not the writer should've kept his job (it was based on more than the one book), but on the fable's merits. Mythology's meant to explain wondrous phenomena and provide history and culture. But it's also intended to embody discussions we have about human behavior and the nature of the universe.
I think it's awesome Steve Englehart was generous enough to share his vision of where he wanted the strip to go. I'll add that the writer doubtlessly sees his job is to generate all the emotionally-involving drama possible. It's not enough to identify him with Clint and say that's his voice; he gave a voice, after all, to Bobbie and her cohort, too. So I think Steve's seeing both sides of the coin, and the nuances that emerge from each character's decision. It was great to dramatize the emergent debate about what sort of code regarding killing best suits the temperment of heroes, super or otherwise. I think, however, he put Clint on the wrong side of the matter. Why didn't he see even the headstrong archer- determined would-be leader, would-be paragon- more accepting of the difficult paradigm encountered by his team? I understand, the humane point of view is a necessary corrollary to preventing the more fascistic side of vigilantism embodied by these self-styled protectors. He may've been avoiding espousing a commentary of creating a version of the 'Thin Blue Line'- where teammate loyalty trumps moral idealism, because this person has to have your back in the face of danger. A good dramatist can empower more than one argument- can evoke variations. He did a good job with empowering the tne tensions of both answers. It could be that he just couldn't finish the job without ascribing the polar opposition to the team's resident husband and wife.
But when you factor in plans to pair Clint thereafter with Englehart's creation, Mantis- who I don't honestly see as a strict 'no-killing' proponent, either, despite her spiritually-evolved trappings- then suddenly, you've got me asking how strong did he think this love the writer professed to admire, really was.
But that's my critique- I suppose it's emotionally based on the failure of comics to build resilient romantic relationships between mature characters. I take it a bit personally!
I would've been more glad than anything in the world to get my wife back, my team mate, back, For one, I'd have been torn up I wasn't there to help her! And to that point, Clint never should've given Barbara any guff- he wasn't the one assaulted, and the Rider, rest assured, would've done someone else who couldn't fight back, that way!
I know Clint felt tremendous weight to measure up to the previous examples of leadership, and that did deserve representation in his thoughts. But he and Mockie, even with that unpleasant reality addressed and factored in as a sore spot one day, would've had a better story if they'd stood side-by-side with the person they love. |
I mean, isn't a relationship of that sort precisely the kind of value in life that makes all this derring-do matter? You're not just saving people's lives...you're saving them for their loved ones and relationships that are integral to those lives. People miss the real point of what matters, that's realistic enough. But I think this may've been myopia exacerbated by Mantis fever.
You can read Steve Englehart's side of this for yourself, in the pages of 1986-7 West Coast Avengers published by Marvel, and his graciously-provided interview in the excellent Back Issue #110, by TwoMorrows Publishing- on sale now!
Comments
Post a Comment