I was going to post that there was this nice write-up on HULK #80 over on aintitcoolnews.com. But for some bizarre reason, subsequent discussion of the review on that site has morphed into fans bìŧçhìņg about an issue of X-FACTOR I wrote in which it was revealed that–contrary to John Byrne’s story revealing Lockjaw was a misshapen Inhuman–Lockjaw was in fact a dog and the Thing had been hosed.
I was going to respond, but my attempt to do so was thwarted since I did not have an AICN account. When I tried to create one, I was referred to a page saying that the account process was screwed up and it asked for patience. Considering it hadn’t been updated since November of 2004, I’m figuring I won’t be replying anytime soon.
So if anyone who DOES have access to AICN wants to reprint this entry or refer people to this site, I just wanted to make things clear: For what it’s worth, I didn’t give a dámņ about the Byrne story one way or the other. I thought it wasn’t bad; not great, but not bad. It did, however, frost the flakes of several writers and the “X-Factor” editor, basically because Byrne’s story made the Inhumans look like áššhølëš. John Byrne, foremost advocate of adhering to creator intent, ignored not only sequences where Stan and Jack had the Inhumans referring to, and treating, Lockjaw as their pet or dog, but the subsequent decades worth of continuity that did the same.
So, since Quicksilver was going to be in “X-Factor,” the writers–and the editor in particular–asked me to take the opportunity to undo that development as quickly and simply as I could. I shrugged, said, “Okay, boss,” and did so.
Now Rick Jones laughing off the Skrull involvement in the Hulk’s origin during an issue of CAPTAIN MARVEL…that was all me.
PAD
• 
First Post!!
…sorry, thought I was an AICN talkbacker there for a moment…terribly sorry 🙂
Well, I thought the whole Lockjaw thing was one of the funnier aspects of X-Factor 71, which is a perfect issue in my opinion. Nice to know the story behind it.
That Skrull sequence, to me, will always – always – rank as the single greatest retcon in history.
I posted PAD’s response on AICN. Hope it doesn’t cause the rabid hordes to foam at the mouth! 😉
Fantastic!!!
T
“That Skrull sequence, to me, will always – always – rank as the single greatest retcon in history.”
Let’s bear in mind that, in both cases, it was Byrne who did the retcon. Inserting Skrulls into an origin story where they previously weren’t is a retcon. Ignoring decades of history to postulate that Lockjaw was not a dog is a retcon. What I did was simply say, “That previous retcon? Ignore it.”
When proofreaders want to indicate that an intended change should be ignored and that the typesetter should stick with what was originally there, they write the word “stet” (derived from the Latin for “let it stand”) and circle it.
Reversing retcons isn’t itself a retcon. It’s a stetcon.
PAD
So, uh, officially in the MU, Lockjaw is NOT a deformed human? Pity; I always thought that was his most endearing quality.
Following up on AICN, quoted merely in part:
“Anyway, what David did was piss on somebody else’s story simply because he (or his Officers) didn’t like it. In my opinion, playing the dumb helpless soldier here is a crummy way to pass the buck. I hope he’s as “magnanimous” at praising the people [who were] responsible [for] his editorially driven writings that were met with positive response.”
Well, I was neither dumb nor helpless, and didn’t present myself as such. I’d say “indifferent” would be more appropriate. If I’d been a fan of the story, I’d have refused to write the stetcon and no one could have pushed me into it. But I wasn’t, so in this instance, I accommodated those who asked me to address it. I’m not passing any buck. My name is on the story. It was my responsibility. I was simply explaining the background behind this particular stetcon.
And yes, absolutely–although I know the poster was merely being snide–I’ve never taken credit for something people praised that originated from someone other than me. When people ask about particular story elements that were either suggested by the editor or put in by the artist, I am 100% consistent with indicating who came up with it. I’m interested in telling people how things came to be, not snagging credit for what they liked and assigning blame elsewhere for what they didn’t.
PAD
So the solution to a story that was perceived (by some) as making the Inhumans look like áššhølëš…was to single out two specific members to look like áššhølëš?
Err…
Howdy, y’all, Dave Farabee from AICN here. I didn’t write the HULK review or any reviews for this particular column, but I was the one who kicked off the Lockjaw thing in the TalkBack. So:
First off, I wanted to say, “Thanks for the response, Peter!”
Second, I wanted to point out that at AICN, the reviews are the reviews, and the TalkBacks are a whole ‘nother beast – rougher, completely unmoderated…guys shootin’ the šhìŧ. One of our members liked this latest issue of THE HULK and the fact that the TalkBack tangented elsewhere needn’t undermine the positive vibrations. Mon.
As for the topic at hand (some twenty years old though it may be)…when I first brought it up, I acknowledged there was some room for debate, first and foremost because my memories of reading classic FF reprints are hazy and I couldn’t recall exactly whether Lockjaw had been treated like a dog o’er the decades or not. Can someone give me a definitive answer on this, maybe describing a relevant scene or two? Because if Lockjaw’s doggie-treatment was, say, him drinking water from a bowl, I’d say, “Well that doesn’t seem particularly cruel – it’s just how he’d be most comfortable drinking given the nature of his newfound physiology.” But if, say, Gorgon and Karnak have been seen making him fetch a stick or he won’t stop eating his own poop…okay, that’s a little different. So on that front, a little help please?
My memories of Lockjaw are more along the lines of him being treated like some uber-smart animal in a Disney toon, one of those beasties that we just know understands everything the humans are saying.
Still…it’s hazy. I’ll concede we’re in a very gray area if someone can cite a few “Lockjaw treated like a dawg” scenes from the past. One thing I know for sure: that the X-FACTOR retcon was editorially mandated doesn’t strike me as a mitigating factor. I’ve got to judge these stories for what they are, not for the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to ’em.
-Dave
“One thing I know for sure: that the X-FACTOR retcon was editorially mandated doesn’t strike me as a mitigating factor. I’ve got to judge these stories for what they are, not for the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to ’em.”
Okay, but here’s the thing: “Behind-the-scenes” motivations are exactly what’s being not only discussed but ascribed by people who weren’t there, which is not deterring them from casting me in the worst possible light. The attitude of the posters is very consistent: That mean rotten Peter David did it to get back at the hated John Byrne. And I’m saying, No, that’s not how it happened, this is how it happened. They’re claiming the notion originated with me out of spite, and I’m saying, no, it didn’t, it originated with others because they disliked the retcon of Lockjaw and asked me to address it. I’m not looking to mitigate anything; merely respond to harsh opinion with dispassionate fact.
PAD
“Behind-the-scenes” motivations are exactly what’s being not only discussed but ascribed by people who weren’t there, which is not deterring them from casting me in the worst possible light.”
Looking back on my AICN posts, it’s obvious I’m ticked over the revision, but I don’t see any point at which I ascribe motivations to you specifically. Some folks do, but I don’t. Closest I come is when I throw out my retcon philosophy: “I like my retcons done Silver Age style: don’t go back and try to “fix” things you don’t like – just ignore the šhìŧ stuff and press on with some good stories.”
It’s a generalized statement, but one I think is fair to apply to the X-FACTOR issue even without knowing all the behind-the-scenes stuff; obviously *someone* didn’t like Byrne’s original story or, well, the recton wouldn’t have happened! And whether it was the result of the actions of you, an editor, or fans writing in to voice disatisfaction, the net result is the same, so I stand by what I wrote.
And incidentally, Byrne is hardly a beloved figure in the TalkBacks – it just happens that this particular story of his struck a chord with a few of us. Guy who undid it was gonna get badmouthed whether it was you, Alan Moore, or Stan Lee his own bad self.
Actually, if it was Stan…
-Dave
You know what I still remember after all these years from the X-Factor run?
The Mayo jar gag.
That was funny.
And speaking of Captain Marvel, anyone else following his little Identity Crisis in New Thunderbolts? Did Fabian talk to you at all about Marv showing up, or is this the first you’ve heard about it?
You know what I still remember after all these years from the X-Factor run?
The Mayo jar gag.
That was funny.
Indeed it was.
As was ‘The Little Multiple Mans Room’ sequence. Which, sure, they are siblings by adoption… but it was still kinda creepy.
“So the solution to a story that was perceived (by some) as making the Inhumans look like áššhølëš…was to single out two specific members to look like áššhølëš?”
Yeah, that struck me too; the Inhumans playing such a prank on the Thing doesn’t sound all that nice either. But, such are the hazards of stetcons. And, really, I didn’t care for the “Lockjaw’s a really disfigured Inhuman” bit too much. I mean, okay, it makes him tragic, but what’s the point in a tragic Lockjaw? You can get probably a one-shot out of it, having him walk around Atillan being all maudlin in his narrative captions, but then what? He’s a supporting character by nature, and as such, I think he works a lot better as just the Inhumans’ teleporting dog. It’s got a Silver Age charm to it.
My favorite X-Factor moment? Fighting the Hulk in MY HOME TOWN of Sparta, IL. To think, at one point in history, every single comic book ever printed (or darn near) came out World Color Press in Sparta.
And there wasn’t a place to buy comics within 30 miles of the place. Now *that* is how you torture a too-young-to-drive comics fan.
What issue does the Skrull/Jones stetcon take place in?
“So the solution to a story that was perceived (by some) as making the Inhumans look like áššhølëš…was to single out two specific members to look like áššhølëš?”
Why would it make them look like áššhølëš? They were playing a practical joke. The FF book has had a history of Ben and Johnny playing practical jokes on each other, why not have others get into the act?
And, really, getting worked up over a retcon of this magnitute (i.e. infintesimal) is not worth it in either direction. I mean, I didn’t like Byrne’s decision to make Lockjaw a deformed Inhuman because I thought it was stupid. It was another example of him taking something fun and turning it into something not-fun, something many comic-book writers have a problem with. (There should be a support group or something). However, if it had never been “fixed” I would have just ignored it anyway because, really, how often is it going to come up?
The Skrull thing, though, that was classic. I remember reading that panel and busting up laughing. To this day anytime there’s some stupid bit of comic book discontinuity that my friends and I come across when we’re reading a book, we say “Obviously, it must be the Skrulls.” It makes everything work.
That gag is one of the only things I remember about the X-Factor run (not bad stories, just a rotten memory).
When it was ‘revealed’ that Lockjaw was an Inhuman ‘human’ and not an Inhuman ‘dog’ I recall liking the idea at first, then annoyed because he would have to be handled differently, and then it struck me that the Inhumans had been treating him like more of a slave than even a pet. If he was capable of kicking into the family discussions but never drawn out, then he was just the unhired help. And I recall Blackbolt feeding him a steak and petting him like a dog, as well as a few others… It was a cute gag, but had long term ramifications that I didn’t like.
Then the X-Factor thing and not only was it funny (poor dumped on Thing) but it *ahem* humanized – was it Triton and Gargon? – quite a bit.
Hmmm, maybe the Inhumans would be good for FF 2 – The InMovie…
I never liked the LockJaw could talk storyline, and I thought that the X-Factor panel cleared that up nicely.
Marvel like DC really doesn’t make continuity a top priority and I am sure that every Avenger that die in the Avengers Dissassembled travesty will be back by Winter 05.
Of course that is just my opinion I could be wrong.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
>>They’re claiming the notion originated with me out of spite, and I’m saying, no, it didn’t
Not the Lockjaw instance, maybe, but the Rick/Skrull comment, of course, DID originate out of spite and was completely unprofessional… but hey, at least it was FUNNY, right, Peter?
I never followed the story, but I have considered if Lockjaw was a human. I supposed the rationale for a dog to be exposed to the mists was for the royal family to have extra protection.
While we are on the subject of Byrne, I know it’s popular to bash Byrne (I didn’t like the return of Doom Patrol), I dislike the fact that other creators are ‘revising’ the story that work. For example, Alpha Flight was turned into a joke. Man of Steel is the definitive Superman origin for me but now there seems to be a push to layer it.
I know Superman origin has always been retconned. I have watched the old cartoon serials where it states it grew up in foster care.
The more things change…
There was a story arc where Lockjaw was revealed to be a deformed Inhuman? Heck, why not have a story arc where it is revealed that Black Bolt is a deformed dog? It makes as much sense.
“Not the Lockjaw instance, maybe, but the Rick/Skrull comment, of course, DID originate out of spite and was completely unprofessional… but hey, at least it was FUNNY, right, Peter?”
Well, I like to think it was funny, but that wasn’t spite either. That was just that I thought the story was stupid. So I had Rick reacting in the same way that many fans and I had reacted.
Some years back, David Michelinie had the Hulk, during his Pantheon days, guest star in two issues of “Spider-Man” which featured a number of things that simply made no sense vis a vis the Hulk. We complained about it at the plot stage when it was sent to Bobbie Chase for approval. The editor ignored our objections and the story saw print as was. So I said, “Fine,” and in a subsequent “Hulk” story, referred to the Spider-Man two parter as a bad dream the Hulk had had. One line toss off. Yet no one has EVER accused me of doing so out of spite to David Michelinie. John Byrne, meantime, if I’m recalling correctly (I could be wrong it; might have been someone else), blew off a ton of Doc Doom appearances he felt were out of character by saying it was a malfunctioning Doc Doom robot. It’s about the ideas, not the people who executed them. Not to go all Cochrane, but if you feel the story is shite, you must rewrite.
PAD
And just for the record, the reason I always liked the practical joke explanation was specifically BECAUSE it seemed so ridiculous. The elegance was in its absurdity. Because for those fans who disliked Byrne’s retcon, they could embrace this and say, “Thank God.” For those who liked the retcon, they could look for reasons that Quicksilver was in fact lying to Madrox. And they wouldn’t have far to look: the reason is right there in Byrne’s own story. Lockjaw’s status is supposed to be the Inhuman’s darkest secret. If it’s a freakin secret, do you REALLY want everybody and his brother knowing? So Quicksilver came up with the first explanation off the top of his head that he could to throw Madrox off the track. Then all we had to do was never have Lockjaw talk again–which no one else at Marvel was gonna do anyway since they hated it–and everyone would be satisfied. Everyone wins.
My one miscalculation was that I haven’t actually ever seen fans come up with the explanation that I thought was kind of obvious.
PAD
“And, really, I didn’t care for the “Lockjaw’s a really disfigured Inhuman” bit too much. I mean, okay, it makes him tragic, but what’s the point in a tragic Lockjaw? You can get probably a one-shot out of it, having him walk around Atillan being all maudlin in his narrative captions, but then what?”
Byrne’s story was pretty much a done-in-one tale featuring a poignant twist ending in the tradition of so many sci-fi short stories. Part of its beauty, from my point of view, is precisely that it needn’t be followed up on. We, the readers, are privy to the dark secret of the Inhumans, but that doesn’t actually require that Lockjaw become a lead character, gain narrative captions, or anything of the sort. Byrne left the specifics of Lockjaw’s history completely ambiguous, revealing only that he’d one been a man, and leaving room for readers to speculate and other writers to essentially write the character as the faithful mute he’d always been. For those readers in “the know”, Lockjaw’s gloomy hangdog expression might simply have added poignancy in future appearances, and for those who weren’t…hey, he can just be a dog. Who knows? Maybe Lockjaw’s mind has an animalistic fog in his transformed state, human-like thought being something that occurs only in sharply emotional states (as in the THING issue). Byrne, for all that he dropped a bombshell, left some wiggle room for interpretation.
-Dave
I kind of liked the “middle ground” approach that the Jenkins/Lee Inhumans miniseries took with Lockjaw (where he was a mildly sentient but not vocal teleporting dog). Truth be told, though, the X-Factor explanation made sense enough to me at the time and I never got up in arms over it. He’s here. He disappears. He’s a dog. So get used to it.
Byrne’s “Chapter One” binge was probably the most appalling attempt at comic bookery ever inflicted upon the comics reading public. Given that no one really ever referenced his “Spider-Man” revamp except for him, I think it’s best ignored completely (or simply laughed at).
As for the “Malfunctioning Doombot” thing, I believe that Byrne used that to explain away Doom’s “uncharacteristic” behavior in the books Byrne wasn’t writing at the time, but I also seem to remember that Walt Simonson (circa FF #350) played the “Faulty Doombot” stetcon card as well.
I wouldn’t waste time trying to convince the AICN crowd to back off of their opinions. They don’t seem like the sort that’s happy with anything less than griping about every single bit of pop culture minutae that they don’t like, bad-mouthing the writers there, and reasserting the fact that George Lucas “forcefully had his way” with their childhood. I wouldn’t lose sleep, PAD, if they don’t come around to your way of thinking.
“Why would it make them look like áššhølëš? They were playing a practical joke. The FF book has had a history of Ben and Johnny playing practical jokes on each other, why not have others get into the act?”
Well, this was a practical joke played during a moment of emotional turmoil equivalent to Terri Schiavo’s situation, so maybe you can see how the context doesn’t work.
“And, really, getting worked up over a retcon of this magnitute (i.e. infintesimal) is not worth it in either direction.”
To clarify: me and a few other guys were grousing on a message board, same as occurs at David’s own blog and bajillions of message boards across the internet. David responded, I responded, others have responded…but in the end, I assume we’re all aware we’re talking creative differences and maybe some differences over professionalism, but I’m sure it’s something we’ll all manage to work past in a day or two 😉
Which is to say: we’re just a few guys talkin’ here – what’s the harm? In the big scheme of life, sure, these stories aren’t pressingly significant, but anyone who loves comics or prose or movies surely recognizes that stories do mean something when they touch us. I think it’s okay to gab a little about ’em.
-Dave
Egad, if we couldn’t use blogs like this, and message boards everywhere, to discuss the most minute and insignificant details of such things as movies, comic books, and the occasional real-life news story, why, there’d be no use for the internet at all.
And we’d all be a lot more productive at our jobs, or whatever it is we’re supposed to be doing while we enter posts. Like this one.
“Egad, if we couldn’t use blogs like this, and message boards everywhere, to discuss the most minute and insignificant details of such things as movies, comic books, and the occasional real-life news story, why, there’d be no use for the internet at all.”
Well……there is always pørņ…..
Dude… you did not just inject a dead woman into a discussion about some stupid comic non-controversy… I have a million things to say to that – most unflattering to you – but since you’re about to get gang-flamed anyway, I’ll just leave it alone and walk away shaking my head.
“Stetcon”? As a professional proofreader, this made me smile and smile. Thanks, PAD.
You know, I was actually impressed at how civil most of this had been, but congratulations, Mark D, on lowering the bar.
If that’s your idea of “leaving it alone” (while missing the point, I might add, and ascribing to Dave personality flaws that I assure you ain’t there), you might want to work on a few personal things yourself.
“Well……there is always pørņ…..”
But then it would just be pornnet.
Somewhat related to the topic, would Lion King 1 1/2 be considered a retcon? Having just watched the original Lion King with an almost 4 year old, I realized one reason for making 1 1/2 (other than more money) was probably that telling the story from that perspective avoids the messy youngin’ questions of “what happened to his dad” for some parents.
I think the reasons for LK1.5 were much more basic: $$$$
The first LK was a masterpiece. All copies of 1.5 should be burned.
It’s kind of like when George Lucas forcefully had his way with my childhood when he produced SWI 🙂
Except something tells me that Lucas wasn’t really concerned with $$ when he made EpI. I recently re-watched it, and while it’s by no means a great movie, most of the problems I think stem from Lil Jake’s lack of serious acting chops. Oh, that, and major portions of the script.
My take (and I’ll freely admit I’m trying to put the best spin on Ep I-III that I can) is that III is going to be so dark, that I had to be made more childlike and innocent, in order to create balance. In fact, I forsee a time when English Film classes 30 years hence come to exactly this same conclusion, citing Lucas as a consummate artist.
Or maybe that’s just midichlorians whispering in my ear…..
Do midichlorians qualify as a retcon? And would that make the total absence of them in Ep II a stetcon?
Well yeah, $$$ was the reason for LK 1 1/2…LK2 was very successful.
LK 1.1/2 isn’t awful when you realize that LK is pretty much Hamlet, Timon & Pumba are Rosencrantz and Gildenstern, so LK 1.5 is Rosencrantz and Gildenstern Are Dead.
Reversing retcons isn’t itself a retcon. It’s a stetcon.
But if you find a retcon so cute and adorable that you take it home and feed it and take care of it and make it a member of the family, does that make it a petcon?
I’m glad it’s the weekend. I don’t know if I want to be around to see the ___tcons to come…
If a New York baseball Team shows promise, then falls apart, does that make it a Metcon? And if a retcon is aware that it is a retcon doesn’t that make it a metacon? And if john Byrne does the art for one of these retcons…wait for it…does that make him a con-artist?
Just wondering.
garbonzo
Of course if you change the history of a Star Wars character, it’s a FETTCON.
“Dude… you did not just inject a dead woman into a discussion about some stupid comic non-controversy…”
Sure I did.
My point was that Byrne’s sci-fi story served the purpose that sci-fi stories often do: it used wild concepts and characters to touch on utterly serious real world issues. You barely have to scrath the surface of metaphor to see the Terragen Mists debate as a larger-than-life analog to parent/child issues as heady as abortion or adoption. Beyond that, the story called into question the most sacred tradition of the Inhumans, the brutal fight between the Thing and Black Bolt serving as a hyperbolic stand-in for the same type of social/religious/culture clashes we see in such real world tragedies as…yes, Terri Schiavo.
It’s okay to talk about such things when stories invite you to. For instance, if Sentinels wipe out millions on Genosha, it’s okay to discuss the event as it relates to the Holocaust. And how many comic book war stories over the last few years have called to mind the war in Iraq, or the controversy over Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib?
We talk about serious things as they relate to serious stories all the time. If you can’t see that…flame away.
-Dave
I am loving this discussion because it makes clear how subjective comics can be.
I had read precious little of The Inhumans before that issue of The Thing. For whatever reason, we just kept missing each other. BUT – the few times I did encounter them, I hated them. I don’t know why; it doesn’t matter why. I thought they were áššhølëš. So Lockjaw being their dirty little secret dovetailed nicely into what I already thought about them. Kind of like if you already hate, say, a politician, and they end up being exposed as crooked and corrupt. “Aha! I knew I hated ____, and NOW I know why!”
So I was totally willing to run with the Lockjaw/pariah/slave/hubris angle, to the point of imagining what the royal family DID to poor Lockjaw once they were behind closed doors again. I’m sure I’m projecting…
“So I was totally willing to run with the Lockjaw/pariah/slave/hubris angle, to the point of imagining what the royal family DID to poor Lockjaw once they were behind closed doors again. I’m sure I’m projecting…”
Good LORD!
And here’s the point where I start to back out of the room quietly…
😉
-Dave
Using the memory of a dead woman who suffered for 15 years to further ones own agenda – be it a political one or to prove a point about a *comic book* – is in poor taste. I don’t know you, Mr. Farabee. I don’t care to. You derailed a thread about HULK #80 and turned it into something trashy and rude. Given the amount of debate that went on here regarding Mrs. Shiavo, I daresay you were trying to stir up the same thing here by invoking the name of Mrs. Shiavo. I guess that makes me an idiot for taking the bait doesn’t it.
“Given the amount of debate that went on here regarding Mrs. Shiavo, I daresay you were trying to stir up the same thing here by invoking the name of Mrs. Shiavo.”
Actually, I only peek in on Peter David’s blog occasionally, so my knowledge of the debating that went on here over the Schiavo case is precisely zero.
Let me ask, though: I do remember Peter David touching on the Abu Ghraib scandal some months back when he noted the eerie timeliness of the FALLEN ANGEL torture story he’d penned before the scandal ever came out. Was David “furthering his agenda” for simply mentioning Abu Ghraib to make a point about timeless issues? Was he mocking the tortured?
Of course not.
You’re looking for agendas that aren’t there, man. I mentioned the Schiavo case because it was a serious case of public division over an issue, broadly similar to the serious division Byrne presented through metaphor in the THING story. I was trying to show how out of place it was to insert a practical joke in the matter – end of story.
If I’ve inadvertantly brought up troubled board memories, my apologies.
As for derailing the HULK thread, I got no clue what you’re talking about. Peter David himself was the one who chose to write about the thread drift of the AICN TalkBacks rather than the positive review my group gave the HULK! Meanwhile, there’s a HULK thread on his board that’s reached 91 posts with nary a mention of AICN. I haven’t derailed jack.
-Dave
Lockjaw couldn’t talk, while Terri Schiavo was desperately trying to talk even as she lay there starving to death. How is that the same?!
Explaining the Skrull/Jones bit. John Byrne did a Hulk Annual in which he did a few retcons to the origin, most notably removing the Soviet spy angle, and replacing it with Skrulls.
PAD then wrote an issue of Captain Marvel where Rick Jones is reading that very comic and laughs. I liked that stetcon (thanks for the new word Peter!) because it was a simple way of showing that Hulk: Chapter One is no longer in continuity. And funny.
“Lockjaw couldn’t talk, while Terri Schiavo was desperately trying to talk even as she lay there starving to death. How is that the same?!”
NOW the thread is derailed…
Of course, don’t even get me started on the bizarre series of events involving characters like Aquaman and Namor. I mean, talk about involed continuity and backstory. I’ve never seen a bigger case for a wetcon in my entire life.
Y’know, I think we should all just keep coming up with __con puns until the whole bitter Terri Schiavo crumbles in the corner and cries. Seriously, this is the kind of thing that puts me off reading comments anywhere on the ‘net, be it here, Newsarama or usenet. It just ends up being bitter and pointless, and I can’t take it.
It’s the kind of thing that makes we wonder what you’d call it if you changed the continuity on a character just because of a wager…
“Lockjaw couldn’t talk, while Terri Schiavo was desperately trying to talk even as she lay there starving to death. How is that the same?!”
Okay, we’re stepping around volatile issues and maybe I’ve been assuming folks are more familiar with the THING story than they are, so let me try to summarize it and explain why I brought up something so serious as the Schiavo case:
At the heart of Byrne’s issue of THE THING was a painfully divisive issue over Inhuman cultural tradition: exposing Inhuman children of a certain age to the “Terrigen Mists” that give them their powers and (sometimes) animalistic visuals. This is a sacred tradition for the Inhumans, but is complicated by the fact that Crystal and Quicksilver’s child (now of age to enter the Mists) is actually human, her parents’ mutant and Inhuman genes having effectively “cancelled” each other out. Crystal refuses to let her baby be exposed, as the Mists are specifically for Inhumans and there’s no knowing what they’ll do to her human child. Quicksilver, however, is adamant on observing tradition, and his egotism factors in too as he wants a child with powers – a child “better” than normal humans. If memory serves, Inhuman tradition specifically has this as the father’s decision to make, complicating the topic yet again (and evoking real-world parental issues).
What happens in the story is that the Thing sides with Crystal, who’s gone into hiding with her child (a kidnapping from the Inhuman perspective), and eventually it gets so ugly that the Thing and Blackbolt are literally beating the crap out of each other over the kid’s fate.
In the stunning finale, Lockjaw speaks, shocking everyone. He challenges Quicksilver’s notion that anything would be better than having a “mere human” as a child, the revelation of Lockjaw’s own deforming experience with the Mists shocking everyone into a moment of clarity. The child, it’s decided, will not be exposed to the mists.
More info and some relevant panels here:
http://www.ffplaza.com/commcenter/articles/Lockjaw.shtml
Why did I bring up Terri Schiavo? Not because of a one-to-one correlation with Lockjaw’s case, but because her very publicly debated fate abstractly called to mind the huge divide over belief and tradition at the heart of the THING story. Again, the intent was to point out how very serious the issue of THE THING was, and why I felt the retcon insertion of a practical joke into its finale was so out of place.
-Dave