Defend the Indefensible: Decimation

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

We've brought this up before, but it's worth going into again.

X-editor Tom Brevoort explains the reasoning behind the post-House of M mutant decimation:

The main goal was to try to restore the uniqueness of mutants, and to make them once again a downtrodden minority. Over the last couple of years, the mutant population in the Marvel Universe skyrocketed, to the point where there was a whole section of Manhattan that was home to virtually nothing but mutants. They were well on their way to becoming a majority, and in the Grant Morrison run on NEW X-MEN, even the avatars of popular culture to some extent. These were interesting elements to explore, but over the long haul rob the X-MEN of some of their metaphorical power—they stand in for anybody who’s ever experienced racism or prejudice, who’s been ostracized because of who or what they are. And that aspect was curtailed by the fact that there were so many mutants in evidence.

This makes no sense whatsoever. The number of people in an ostracized group is utterly irrelevant! There are several million black people in the US - this doesn't stop anyone from being a racist, and there are millions of gay people on earth, and that fact stops no one from being a homophobe. Women are a majority of the population and yet suffer from sexism and misogyny all over the world. The statement has no basis in reality at all whatsoever. If anything, the skyrocketing number of mutants was true to a) science and b) the basic metaphorical concept behind the X-Men. What I want to understand is why anyone would actually believe this would be a good idea, or that it was in any way, shape, or form a defensible concept unless they happened to be deluded by an excess of white male privilege and a very poor grasp of mathematics.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 10 November 2005 00:35 (twenty years ago)

Damn, forgot to close the italics after the bold bit.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 10 November 2005 00:36 (twenty years ago)

Fixed it for you.

In terms of percentages, blacks/gays are still a small population compared to your white heteron -- but I get your point. (E.g. Africans in Apartheid-South Africa.)

It seems more like whoever's in charge of this thing (I have no idea what House of M is!) is trying to make the metaphor more of a concrete psychological reality, if the racial thing is to be believed -- though it totally misses out on the Milligan/Morrison thing about celebrity worship/envy/haterism.

― Wolfcastleee (Leee), Thursday, 10 November 2005 01:30 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, but the reasons for racism/sexism/homophobia/xenophobia does not lie in that there are, for example, only 198 black people on earth!

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 10 November 2005 01:45 (twenty years ago)

No, I understand! It's usually the other way around that causes phobic fear, where a population feels that it's being victimized and threatened by an "other" and so it needs to villainize the other.

― Wolfcastleee (Leee), Thursday, 10 November 2005 01:56 (twenty years ago)

The question is: Is it possible for anyone but people totally blinded by their own privilege to take the concept of being a "minority" so literally to the point of completely misunderstanding the concept of being a victim of a hegemony?

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 10 November 2005 03:48 (twenty years ago)

Paul O'Brien defends it on the basis of it giving the line a direction that it's been lacking since Morrison left. It's probably the only good defense that I've read, and it doesn't even touch the point of this thread.

I think that is a completely stupid and pointless idea that not only undermines the entire concept and themes of the X-Men but it also restricts future writers' stories and takes away some of the depth and magic of the Marvel Universe. What if a writer wants to create a mutant with some radical new powers and a new point of view on mutation?. They can't, they have to write yet another Bishop story. And the fact that the MU had this wild variable (mutants) running around made it much more exciting and unexpected. Now all the mutants are accounted for (given that most of those 198 or 300 or whatever are going to be present in the gazillion X books) and the place lacks the depth it had before.

― Amadeo (Amadeo G.), Thursday, 10 November 2005 05:08 (twenty years ago)

Well, from what I've read both in the comics and in the Brevoort interview, it's clear that this is just the set up for a larger storyline, and we should expect a reversal sometime in the next year or two.

It is totally annoying how all the X-Men except for Iceman just happened to be among the lucky ones to keep their powers, along with just the right villains. Waaaaay too convenient.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 10 November 2005 05:56 (twenty years ago)

they iced iceman?!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 06:17 (twenty years ago)

Surely part of the reason why mutants are hated and feared etc etc is that though there aren't many of them now, their numbers are constantly growing because they are the new humans. The norms' fear of replacement will be that much stronger when 5, 10, or 20% of the population is mutant, and mutants may be a majority in their or their children's lifetimes. If mutants are a tiny minority, that fear goes away. If there were only 200 black people in the US, they'd be a curiosity, nothing more.

― Ray (Ray), Thursday, 10 November 2005 09:20 (twenty years ago)

Is "the mutants are the new humans" a Morrison invention?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:50 (twenty years ago)

OK the indefensible part here is obviously the idea (not directly spoken by Marvel but pretty directly spoken on some other MBs by people who like the DeciMation ide) that oppression is only interesting or bad when it's violent, heroically resisted oppression. "How can they be oppressed when there's loads of them?" It's like mutants can't complain unless there are mutie-hating lynch mobs on ever corner, just like the old days.

But an attempt at a defense, or a way to make this work - clearly NOT being tried by Brevoort, it seems - is to turn the question around and say, "It's 2005, why do we need a metaphor for a minority any more? Why not tell stories about - gasp! - ACTUAL minority characters?" Most of the 'expanded mutant population' stories that Morrison told, after all, were just pop-culture trends with 'black' or 'gay' replaced with 'mutant' - oh look a mutant club, a mutant district, human kids 'dressing mutant' etc etc. It should be possible to address these kind of themes without the cover-story of mutantdom, surely?

And if that was what was behind DeciMation, an admission that Marvel doesn't need mutants any more to tell relevant stories, then I could understand and support it.

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 10 November 2005 11:06 (twenty years ago)

"Is "the mutants are the new humans" a Morrison invention? "

i think I've read about ten x-men books in my life, so I may not be the most reliable source, but hasn't Magneto always argued that mutants are the new humans? If mutant parents always have mutant children, and norms sometimes have mutie kids, then the mutie population has to grow...

― Ray (Ray), Thursday, 10 November 2005 11:30 (twenty years ago)

Without the cover-story of mutantdom, it isn't a superhero comic, so how does Marvel cover it? Gay mutants bashed by straight mutants? Or norms who ignore the fact that some kid is 12 foot tall with wings and glowing eyes, and get worked up about his skin colour?

― Ray (Ray), Thursday, 10 November 2005 11:32 (twenty years ago)

People do have secret identities you know!

I've not actually read the original X-Men run from the 60s - was the minority/prejudice theme there from the beginning?

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 10 November 2005 11:38 (twenty years ago)

No - also they are all 'we are a different species' from the beginning - Xavier occasionally chides them for acting like they're better than 'the humans'. Though early on Beast quits the team for half an issue after he's attacked by a mob, it's presented as an extension on the 'everybody hates Spidey' thing rather than anti-mutantism. It's only when the Sentinels come along and Xavier goes on a live debate to discuss why an anthropologist has no business attempting to build giant mutant-hunting robots that the issue starts to coalesce, and even then it's quickly replaced by Roy Thomas supervillain-of-the-week schtick. The 'we are a school for superheroes' theme is a lot more prominent in the early days.

The X-Axis site has a handy breakdown of the first few years.

― Vic Fluro (Vic Fluro), Thursday, 10 November 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

Can someone give me a rundown of the major and semi-major characters who've lost their powers? Iceman and Moonstar I know about, but skimming through other issues it seems that Emma, Scott, Henry, Dazzler, Psylocke, Rachel, Nightcrawler and Nocturne all have their powers.

― Dan (Excruciating Back Pain) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 10 November 2005 12:50 (twenty years ago)

As far as I can tell these characters still have powers:

Cyclops
Emma Frost
Wolverine
Colossus
Kitty Pryde
Beast
Storm
Nightcrawler
Rachel "Marvel Girl" Summers
Psylocke
Havok
Polaris
Gambit
Rogue
Bishop
Sage
Forge
Cable
Siryn
Domino
Cannonball
Magma
Karma
Wolfsbane
Strong Guy
Madrox, The Multiple Man
Pete Wisdom
Dazzler
Monet
X-23
a handful of characters in the New X-Men series

It's just waaaaaay too convenient that all of X-Men (even the lame-ass d-listers!) except for two were spared when most everyone else was not.

Major characters definitely de-powered:

Iceman
Danielle Moonstar
Quicksilver
Magneto
Blob
Chamber
Jubilee
Callisto

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 10 November 2005 13:42 (twenty years ago)

No word on Archangel, by the way. He's been missing from the series for a while now, totally inexplicably.

Also, add Husk to the powered list.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 10 November 2005 13:43 (twenty years ago)

My first thought is that they could actually take the opportunity to do some interesting stories, like if WOLVERINE or Cyclops was depowered. Of course, that wouldn't last for more than a year and would probably come off as gimmicky (not that this isn't!).

Are they trying to make it seem like this is FOREVER?

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:10 (twenty years ago)

Well, that's the scare tactic, but it's just so blindingly obvious that they've set this up to be a finite story. Thank god! I don't really mind this so much as a short term storyline.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:18 (twenty years ago)

And if that was what was behind DeciMation, an admission that Marvel doesn't need mutants any more to tell relevant stories, then I could understand and support it.

Some of the other writers / editors, in talking about / defending DeciMation (gotta capitalize the M!), talked about the Get Out Of Back Story Free card that was available every time a new character was introduced, & now this NO MORE MUTANTS mandate offers an interesting challenge.

Of course, this might just be justification they fabricated because the whole "minority" line is a tough yarn to convincingly weave (since it's booshit, as y'all have noted). PLEASE junk the minority metaphors - talk about speciazation (even if it's not scientifically accurate), if you're going to talk about marginalization or anything.

The fact that Claremont's run established mutants as the next step in evolution (at least as a "what if?" in Magneto's brain) (can't recall if Xavier was on this boogie board, too) meant it was natural that the numbers of mutants would increase, which dovetailed nicely with the popularity of the X brand. I don't mind that they've (temporarily, or even long-term) dropped a comet on the whole thing & made mutants an engandered species, if it leads to good stories. Duh.

(On a "who cares" note: I didn't realize Brevoort took over the X-offices; last I remember, he was in the Avengers stable, & Mike Marts was the X guy.)

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:20 (twenty years ago)

BTW, I think Archangel is either A) going through an IDENTITY CRISIS or B) trying to forget that he was sexing a teenager & has blood w/ healing powers.

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:32 (twenty years ago)

Woah! Is Chamber dead now or did Wanda magically give him his face back? Also, did she depower herself?

― Dan (Sucking Chest Wound) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:35 (twenty years ago)

Finally, THANK GOD THEY DIDN'T TAKE AWAY STRONG GUY'S POWERS!

― Dan (Stupid Fucking Editors) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:36 (twenty years ago)

Isn't Strong Guy in the new X-Factor? That'd be silly, to depower him & then make him into the team's Cypher.

Dan: scroll down to the big red dragon, and then look at the final preview page.

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:38 (twenty years ago)

What about BEAK? Is he still around?

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:39 (twenty years ago)

Last I saw (in an online preview, natch), he was farting around in Exiles in some alt.reality where he looks more human and Angel (the fly-winged vomit one) was around to help raise the Beaklets all happily-ever-after-like.

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:40 (twenty years ago)

BTW, that red dragon was supposedly some mutant lawyer that turned into a dragon when she comes in contact w/ blood.

NO MORE MUTANTS!

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:43 (twenty years ago)

Morrison's "mutants as prevailing zeitgeist" concept never got its proper acknowledgement from the post-NXM books and now Marvel's going to typically halfhearted extremes to destroy all vestiges of that unique idea.

So far I see unnecessary angst, inflated significance, and absolutely no effect on any of the characters I care to read about. Marvel fumbled. I'm gonna go cry now.

― Madolan, Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:00 (twenty years ago)

Isn't Strong Guy in the new X-Factor? That'd be silly, to depower him & then make him into the team's Cypher.

That was more a comment on the particular B-listers who survived this nonsense; I've kind of never, ever, ever cared about Strong Guy, even back when PAD was writing him. Jubilee, as annoying as she is, is about 8 gajillion times more interesting to me.

― Dan (Excruciating Back Pain) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 10 November 2005 23:36 (twenty years ago)

I think that's is awfully generous to consider Strong Guy a b-list character. He's more like Z list.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 10 November 2005 23:48 (twenty years ago)

"strong guy"? what's his power?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 November 2005 02:16 (twenty years ago)

An even larger "This change has the a shelf life of one year" sign is that apparently Wolverine remembers his whole life now.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 11 November 2005 03:41 (twenty years ago)

Well, yeah, that and Magneto losing his powers.

Honestly, I just don't understand why they even bother doing big changes with Magneto anymore. There's just no better way of wrecking the longterm impact of an X-Men story than by doing some kind of drastic change to any of the core characters.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Friday, 11 November 2005 04:26 (twenty years ago)

It seems like the more sensible strategy for any writer looking to leave a lasting imprint on the title would be to come up with a good villain or regular cast member and make them so popular and crucial that they become canon. It seems clear now that the rehabilition of Emma Frost is Grant Morrison's longterm legacy on the franchise.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Friday, 11 November 2005 04:32 (twenty years ago)

"strong guy"? what's his power?

Hahahaha! Strong Guy has the awesome power of turning kinetic energy (ie, punches to the face and abdomen) into STRENGTH! At one point in X-Men history, he absorbed so much kinetic energy that his heart spasmed out and he had a coronary and they couldn't restart his heart because all of the extra muscle mass his body generated turned his chest into the equivalent of a solid rock wall. (Fortunately, reality ceased to exist for a few months right before he died and when things got put back, he was in a hospital room in a magic life-saving coma. Thank you, Fabian Nicieza.)

― Dan (Excruciating Back Pain) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 11 November 2005 04:41 (twenty years ago)

(Also, Lobdell is really the one who started the wheels of the rehabilitation of Emma way back when the Hellions got waxed and a little later on with Generation X.)

― Dan (Excruciating Shoulder Pain) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 11 November 2005 04:42 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, but Grant is the one who made her popular, and made her a crucial part of the core X-Men group to the point that she is now the co-leader of the group. Lobdell started it, but the success is mostly due to New X-Men.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Friday, 11 November 2005 05:10 (twenty years ago)

TS: Guido Carosella vs. Sebastian Shaw

¡¿¡Quién Es Más Macho!?!

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Friday, 11 November 2005 05:16 (twenty years ago)

I don't really agree with that, Matthew.

Emma has been a regular heroic character in the books for the past 11 years so I think it's a little disingenuous to credit her rehabilitation to Morrison (ie, she'd been rehabilitated for what, 6-7 years, before he started writing her?). Just because Lobdell had some outstandingly stupid ideas doesn't mean he didn't also have some great ones.

Also I haven't seen the numbers but I'm relatively certain that Lobdell's issues sold more than Morrison's if only because of the relative states of the industry, so what's your metric for "more popular" besides "I like the Morrison ones"?

― Dan (Credit Where Credit Is Due) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 11 November 2005 05:20 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.