September 7, 2004

MARRIAGEDEBATE MANIA! New question of the week, plus possible future QOTW’s. Future possible questions (obviously meant more to spur discussion than to provoke quick yes-or-no answers): What shouldn’t you do outside of wedlock?

Who are a child’s parents?

“Marriage will help tame gay men.” True, false, insulting, irrelevant?

Why don’t you suggest some too? Drop me a line at eve_tushnet@yahoo.com.

This week’s question: “Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage…”

Any contemporary discussion of marriage is quickly going to become also a debate about love. Is love the core of marriage?

If so, what kind of love are we talking about here? Historically eros, for example, was considered more a threat and a rival to marriage than a justification for it or an intrinsic part of it. Has that changed? How should we view the connection between eros, marriage, and responsibility? (In college, a romantically-minded friend argued that marriage was inherently anti-romantic because it sought to bind the beloved to oneself, fettering the beloved’s autonomy and bringing the ugly machinery of society and state into affairs of the heart. Was he on to something?)

more here

August 23, 2004

“RAISING KEVION”: Intermittently sweet, harsh, true-to-life piece from the NYT Magazine‘s welfare beat reporter. Must-read; if I’ve heard this story once I’ve heard it a hundred times. Via Family Scholars.

Excerpts: “Nearly a decade has passed since the country ‘ended welfare’ with a landmark bill imposing time limits and work requirements, and low-skilled women like Jewell have entered the work force in record numbers. But low-skilled men have not. And low-skilled black men, the sea in which Jewell has spent her life swimming, have continued to leave the job market at disconcerting rates, even during the late-90’s boom. In cutting the rolls and increasing work, the 1996 welfare law, and a related expansion of services, has been celebrated as a rare, even unique, triumph, and on one level it is. But with about 90 percent of welfare families headed by single mothers, it is also a lesson in the limits of a policy that is focused on one sex. Whatever it has done to put women to work, it won’t really change the arc of inner-city life until it — or something — reaches the men. …

“A parallel story resides on Angie’s branch of the family tree. She did know her father — knew him as a drunk. ‘Wanna marry my mama?’ she once asked a city bus driver as a little girl. ‘I want a daddy!’ Still, her feelings toward her father ran so deep that she credits them for her decision, after leaving welfare, to become a nursing aide. She saw her father for the last time just before she moved to Milwaukee, and she was stunned at how sick he had become; she had to help him use the bathroom. A month later, he was dead. Taking on a caregiver’s job, she said, was her way of making amends. ‘I felt so guilty — I did not do anything for him,’ she said. ‘I was mad at him, yeah, but . . . he was still my daddy.’ …

“His idealization of the wedding extends to the marriage. The sociologist Kathryn Edin argues that poor, unmarried couples often conceive marriage as an especially exalted state — relationship perfection — rather than as the acceptably imperfect structure in which daily living occurs. That’s certainly how Ken described it. ‘Once you get married, that means she’s everything in a woman you’re looking for and you’re everything in a man she’s looking for,’ he said. Jewell said much the same: ‘It’s just you and that person, become one.’ A marriage, therefore, carries intimidating risks, none greater than the risk of your partner cheating. ‘Oh, yes, yes, yes,’ Ken said. ‘If you’re married, and she goes out there and cheats on you, that’s like the worst thing in the world! ‘Cause you said those wedding vows. When you get married, you say you got an inseparable bond. So if she goes out there and cheats on you, she’s breaking laws and policies!”’

whole thing

August 17, 2004

THESE PICTURES OF YOU: COMICS REVIEWS. Let’s go!

Finder: Mystery Date. Wow, I’m so conflicted about this book. First off, I am a Carla Speed McNeil completist at this point. I’m addicted to the Samuel Delany-esque Finder world. This is wonderful science fiction, extending out beyond the borders of the page; rough and weird and sprawling just like real life. It feels like McNeil is describing the Finder world, rather than creating it.

But. Um. This volume feels… lecture-y. Now, that’s maybe because the characters are professors and students. In real life, such people lecture. And McNeil’s lectures feel relatively real. But still, I felt like I was being beaten over the head with characters’ respective positions. The main character is a temple prostitute and most of the lectures involve sex in some way or another, so it’s also lectures about something I’ve thought a lot about (I mean, it’s my job), and I really didn’t feel like I was getting anything new.

One of the major themes of the book is the clash of expectations. And usually this is something that would immediately attract me to a work of fiction. I love seeing clashes where one character is completely shocked by what another character takes for granted. But again, it didn’t quite work here. My guess is that it didn’t work for me because the main conflict was a clash between two very differently-situated cultures (one positioned as “civilized” and one as “exotic”) in a way I feel like I’ve had pounded into my head a hundred times since entering high school. And at this point, either I’m a jerk about “exotic” cultures or I’m not, but I’ve heard all the arguments already and seen all the lopsided conflicts in which the “exotic” cultural insider is obviously more open-minded and sensitive and questioning and whatnot than the “civilized” intellectualizing outsiders. I’m starting to think that right now I more want to see the clash of expectations within a culture–people who thought they were on the same page and only now realize that they were never even reading from the same script. Anyway, I find it hard to tell if it’s that McNeil is being too exaggerated and blunt or if I’m just hugely jaded on this whole question after my Riot Grrrl years, or what.

But see, every Finder book ends with McNeil’s notes, and these are so utterly charming and scientifictionally pleasing that I come away with a huge love for the book. She really has this whole world in her head and it’s wonderful to see. Also, her drawings are amazingly sweet and fluid. I purr at her drawings even when I’m not wildly thrilled by the storyline to which they’re hooked. Plus, her characters are vivid, realistic, and lovable. Very much worth your time even though you might find yourself (as I did) growling and muttering at the page.



Human Target: Strike Zones. This is really a series of short stories about Christopher Chance, who can impersonate anyone perfectly. Lovely little overwritten fables about personal identity and lack of same. I keep hanging on to this fairly predictable title because I’m obsessed with the theme (oh so Walker Percy!) and I can put up with the fact that it always has at least thirteen more captions than it needs. Someone needs to flense the captions, seriously. Anyway, it’s a James Bond suspense thing with a much deeper underlying emotional current than the Bond films, so I’m into it.



Powers: Who Killed Retro Girl? Probably suffered in comparison to the other titles. I resisted picking up Powers in part because of the artwork, which for some reason I didn’t like. Now, I have no idea what I was thinking. The artwork is big and brassy and exaggerated and I love it, almost. (The “almost” is for the amazingly annoying, predictable reason that Oeming draws every female with the same Barbie physique and gives us several infuriating, physics-defying shots of Detective Pilgrim with her pants falling off her ass.)

The dialogue is Bendis standard, which is fine, but… I dunno. I didn’t feel like this comic was giving me anything I couldn’t get better in (the first volume of) Alias, or even Sleeper. Seriously, what is the unique thing that Powers offers? It looks good, but I got no interest in it beyond that.

Oh hey, I totally didn’t tell you what it is. It’s a detective story about two cops, ex-superhero Walker and rookie Pilgrim, investigating crimes committed against your basic costumed superpowered folk. “Homicide superior,” as they say.



Sleeper: All False Moves. I’m so in love.

Okay, so at first glance, this sounds like Powers. It’s basically The Superpowered Spy Who Came in From the Cold. Except he doesn’t get to come in from the cold, because the only person who knows he’s really still one of the Good Guys is in a coma. But it’s a twisty creepy shivery spy story with superpowers. How come you should get it right now? (After you get the first two volumes, Point Blank and Sleeper: Out in the Cold.) I’ve got three reasons:

1) Characters. The characterizations of double (?) agent Holden Carver, his “only happy when somebody else is screaming” girlfriend Miss Misery, his boss TAO, and his friend Genocide Jones are fun and consistent and compelling.

2) Suspense. I flipped every page with intense interest, worrying about what was going to happen to our knockabout and decidedly compromised quasi-hero.

3) Ohhhhhhh, the layout. This book is such a sensual pleasure. The layout is noticeable, but simple and not showy: lots of boxes. But the boxes are positioned in such a way that you can’t help but make the connections to the themes of the book: windows (frame-ups, constricted vision, limited POV), cages, organizational flowcharts, playing cards, photographs (evidence). I dug this layout in Out in the Cold and now I think I have a huge layout crush–I want to send it anonymous Valentines with soppy poetry. Also, the pages are still glossy and weirdly thick in a way that is strangely exciting to turn.

OK OK, Sleeper won’t change your world. But it’s as good as Chandler. It’s fantastic noir-spy comicsness. You want it. You really, really do.

Next up: Planetes v. 2 and 3; the first volumes of The Invisibles and Doom Patrol.

August 17, 2004

COSTUMED VIGILANTES: an exchange between me and Jason Spak. He gets the last word.

Me: Here.

Jason: What you wrote about Dahlia Lithwick pleased me. Like you, I get annoyed when lefty commentators “give[] us nothing other than personal policy-outcome preferences as a guideline for how judges should interpret the law.” I read the other blog entries you linked to, and concluded that if you’re on crack, one wouldn’t know it from reading your thoughts on constitutional interpretation.

Do you really want to come up with a counter-argument for people like Ms. Lithwick? If so, my hunch is that it will be more profitable to consider what they have to say about original understanding, than it will be to challenge them to devise a comparable theory of jurisprudence. To that end, here are three questions that I sometimes think about:

1) Like you, I tend to think bitterly of certain passages, like the infamous “mystery doctrine” in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, as policy preferences cloaked in high-falutin’ language. But to some extent, aren’t passages that advocate “original understanding” doing the same thing? In other words, would conservatives like “original understanding” if it wasn’t helpful to them politically? See, e.g., http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/001227.html

2) The Supreme Court has used substantive due process, the essential tool in every activist judge’s kit, in good ways: it struck down an Oregon law that barred parents from sending their kids to Catholic school (Pierce v. Society of Sisters), and a Nebraska law that prevented kids from learning German in school (Meyer v. Nebraska). The opinions in those cases find a “right to parental control of education” that isn’t in the constitution any more than a “right to abortion” is. Would conservatives really jettison substantive due process, if they knew that laws like these might be among the results of doing so?

3) Hasn’t the court always been politicized? Look at the 19th century, when the Court used substantive due process to decide Dred Scott on political grounds, or the 18th century, when a conservative attempt to pack the courts with political hacks before Jefferson could do it gave us Marbury v. Madison.

Me: “Do you really want to come up with a counter-argument for people like Ms. Lithwick?”

Not necessarily, actually. I’m increasingly convinced that while it’s possible to talk about what NOT to do in jurisprudence, it’s very difficult or maybe even impossible to develop a hard and fast, bright-line theory of what TO do. Hence the “prudence” in jurisprudence, I guess. I am more comfortable about talking about what I think is definitely out of bounds than in coming up with a theory that would provide answers to all or maybe even most legal questions. It’s sort of like defining art, maybe–any top-down theoretical definition is going to be inadequate, but you do need some way of talking about what artists are doing and whether it works and whether it’s good. Not a great analogy, but I think it at least captures the degree of fuzziness I think is inevitable in jurisprudential theory. (All those “maybe”s and “I think”s should show how uncertain I am even about this uncertainty!)

“But to some extent, aren’t passages that advocate ‘original understanding’ doing the same thing? In other words, would conservatives like ‘original understanding’ if it wasn’t helpful to them politically? See, e.g., http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/001227.html

See, those are three different questions: a) Isn’t ‘original understanding’ philosophical-kingship and vague disguise for personal policy preference? To this I think the answer is ‘no, but.’ Obviously ‘orig. understanding’ needs to be fleshed out. (For example, Scalia is not an “originalist” but rather a “textualist,” a philosophically different beast; and not a 100% textualist at that, more of a 75% textualist. He gives a nice popularized explication of his views, with replies and his response to those replies, in A Matter of Interpretation, which youmight really like if you haven’t read it already.) But one of my basic “Are you a philosopher king?” tests for judges is whether they would say that certain unpalatable policy options are forced on them by the laws. E.g. I don’t think the Constitution guarantees the right to life of the unborn, even though I’d obviously like it to and I’ve read various arguments that it does. So I do think it’s possible to be a “real” textualist or originalist (though not a 100% one, see above re impossibility of top-down theories) rather than just using that interpretive framework as a convenient disguise for policy preferences.

b) Would conservatives be “originalists” (argh, NOBODY is a 100% originalist or textualist and the concepts are almost certainly incoherent just from a linguistic philosophy standpoint, but I’m going to shut up about that now) if/when that perspective doesn’t serve their policy ends? It depends on which conservatives! (And maybe on which policy ends.) See above re possibility of jurisprudence against one’s own policy preferences.

c) What do I think of the Off the Kuff link? …Eh, I’m not wildly impressed by it. I think it sounds like Kuffner hasn’t read the extended-play version of orig/textualist claims, and is working off an oversimplified understanding of what they entail; and it’s SOOOO WEIRD!!!! to say that the amendment process, as specified in Article V, is an argument for tacit amendment of the Constitution by crusading judges! I mean, I did a real doubletake on that one.

“The Supreme Court has used substantive due process, the essential tool in every activist judge’s kit, in good ways…. Would conservatives really jettison substantive due process, if they knew that laws like these might be among the results of doing so?”

Again, depends on the conservative! I honestly do NOT know enough about the arguments in Pierce to express a judgment of it one way or the other. (Again with the fuzziness. I’m so unsatisfying!) But I can easily come up with “substantive due process” claims that would provide results I like while relying on a jurisprudential view (of the courts’ role in discerning and maintaining the rule of law and the Constitution) that I find abhorrent. So yeah, I’d give up some good stuff (which we could GET OTHER WAYS, via all the traditional other tools of social movements) to restrict the courts.

“3) Hasn’t the court always been politicized?”

Oh, sure. And doubtless always will be. The question is, though, once we acknowledge this, do we seek to get away with politicization for our own ends (git ’em girl, before they git you) or to minimize politicization, maximize public skepticism of it, and minimize the political benefits of it for any side? IOW you’ll always have some level of politicization/philosopher-kingship, but I am idealistic enough to think it varies and we can through our jurisprudential theories contain it to some extent.

Final thought: One helpful way to think about this is to take the perspective of the voter trying to be responsible in exercising the franchise. Can voters know what they are voting for? I go into that here.

Jason: A) I agree — wholeheartedly — that it’s “very difficult or maybe even impossible” to develop a top-down theory of judging. More to the point, it’s annoying — the kind of empty exercise that gives phrases like “ivory tower” their often pejorative ring. I thought you were trying to create such a theory in the earlier blog posts you linked to, which seemed to catalogue of levels of political influence and types of stare decisis. I’m glad to know that you either weren’t then or aren’t now doing so.

1)a) You mention “one of [your] basic ‘Are you a philosopher king?’ tests for judges . . . .” Do you really have more than one such test? If so, you should consider contacting Quizilla and creating something on-line.

1)c) I should have linked, not to Kuffner, but to the Lithwick article he cites. In it, she says that “Scalia can afford to be an originalist, only because he personally agrees with most of the moral and religious assumptions of the framers.” To my mind, that’s the argument (the idea that Scalia et al. mouth the words “I’m only following the framers” because they know that the framers either favor them, or favor the status quo, on issues like gay marriage) that advocates for “original understanding” and their kin need to confront.

Z) I’m not sure I grasp your marriagedebate link. There usually isn’t too much press when the Court construes or misconstrues the laws that regular people vote for (not that we directly vote for anything here in Pennsylvania); the real kerfuffles happen when the Court construes or misconstrues amendments to the Constitution, none of which were “voted on” in quite the way that pieces of legislation are.

August 15, 2004

We all feel blogwatch in the dark…

Dave Tepper writes about Gov. McGreevey and same-sex marriage. I think Dave’s way of connecting the two is wrong, and there are major reasons for even a supporter of SSM to avoid this interpretation of events. Chris Crain and Jonathan Rauch roughly agree with Dave; E.J. Graff, Josh Chafetz of Oxblog, Sed Contra, and I (here) roughly disagree, from quite different political positions.

Sed Contra on a startlingly sound piece from the Washington Post on “Washingtonienne.” Draw your own connections to McGreevey’s situation.

Dahlia Lithwick says the term “activist judges” is meaningless but gives us nothing other than personal policy-outcome preferences as a guideline for how judges should interpret the law. I growl at this view at length here and at an oblique angle here and here (please do read all of those before replying if you think I’m on crack). Basic thesis: “[B]oth Bush v. Gore and Roe v. Wade were wrongly decided, and [] their problems, while hardly identical, are related.”…Lithwick link via How Appealing and Family Scholars.

August 13, 2004

“SHIP COMES IN”: OTHER WICKED LITTLE THINGS. The next section of the Norse myths story. In which Sigyn and Loki begin a marriage fit for gods and monsters. A few things to note: 1) I went through and messed with the earlier segments of the story, changing some bits of prose I hated and dropping a tiny hint or two about something I just figured out about the scene at the Bitter End.

2) This new section, which includes Sigyn’s wedding night, got significantly more frank than I expected. I guess R-rated? I’ve been sticking pretty close to Sigyn’s vocabulary and locutions (though not always to her POV), so the descriptions are sometimes slightly out-of-date because that’s how she would think about sex.

3) That said, I’m not satisfied with this section, and would welcome comments on whatever is or is not working for you with this story.

4) There’s very little Michael in this section, but you’ll get more of him in the next one, which is also the one where we meet the children.

So: click here for the story so far, here for the new scene.

Bridal books, engagement rings,

And other wicked little things…

August 12, 2004

SECONDARY MUTATIONS: This is my big post about Grant Morrison’s New X-Men. Spoilers, of course, abound.

“WOLVERINE. I THINK YOU CAN STOP DOING THAT NOW.” Perhaps the most obvious feature of NXM, by the time it ended, was the way it took every single reader expectation and rubbed its face in the dirt. Every single kind of X-Men story was warped and molded to the NXM framework: Shi’ar aliens, Sentinels, Phoenix, everything is recycled. The line that summarizes the most obvious feature of NXM is Emma Frost’s sardonic, sympathetic-but-unrelenting reference to “these reruns of your grief.” Morrison is clearly trying to shake something loose just by hitting the old X-Men motifs hard enough.

And I almost like that approach. I love how Morrison suckered me into preferring ferocity to sense, and then let his storylines show how sense was really the better path. I love how he made me want Magneto to be right, and then showed me how that only works as a slogan on teenage t-shirts.

And I love the metafictional premise. I love the assumption that every kind of story can be made a story about Grant Morrison’s personal obsessions. Murder mysteries (“Murder at the Mansion”), space operas (“Imperial”), schooldays fiction (“Riot at Xavier’s”)–it is all available for whatever meaning you, the creator, choose to impose. I expect I identified too heavily with the writer for this to have much impact. What you want to know is how people who don’t think of themselves as the writers view this kind of blatant manipulation. I loved it; but then, I would. It heightened my sense of my own power: my author’s sense that I can draw my own preferred meaning out of any situation.

YOUR FUTURE LIES IN GENOCIDE: One of the most impressive things about Morrison’s work is the fact that he never forced his interpretations on the characters. Instead, he drew out the aspects of characters that had been neglected for decades. Morrison has a pitch-perfect sense of what Emma, Henry (“C’est moi! La Bete! …Emma, it’s Henry…”), Scott (“Insurance takes care of everything”), and Jean would say. I’m especially impressed that although Jean’s temper is a strong undercurrent pushing the action, she never comes across as a motiveless bitch. We sympathize with her (“Doesn’t everything seem mildly traumatized?”) and we want her husband to come home, even though I think as presented Emma is much better for Scott than Jean is.

Morrison pushes his fingerprints into the clay of the X-Men while still making sure that they take their expected places on the chessboard. He gives fans what we want. And then he shows us that what we want isn’t what we really want. Oh, you want the return of Magneto? Come on. The guy by this point has got to be a ramshackle maniac barely held together by your faith in his competence.

NXM is an extended exercise in giving the people what they want, in the hopes that Courtney Love was right, and once they get what they want they’ll never want it again.

Well, it’s not quite that bad. I do think that’s the biggest thing happening in NXM, and it’s kind of embarrassing and unfortunate since really it’s not that big at all. Just as Cassandra Nova collapses the whole universe into her struggle with her twin brother Charles, so the entire series pretty much collapses into metafictional commentary in which little exists outside the womb of Marvel comics. I wish that weren’t my ultimate verdict, since I like Marvel comics a lot but really don’t think they’re worth the effort here expended.

There are other tendrils, though. There’s the pacifist tendril: violence as capitulation to our worst tendencies. There’s the tendril that explores the attractiveness of evil–everything from Cassandra’s Richard III-like speech to Mr. Trask (“Forget your dental practice. Your future lies in genocide”) to readers’ cruel desire to see Wolverine wreck ass at the very end. We want the X-Men to blow stuff up, and Morrison plays nicely on that desire.

There’s the tendril that explores deception, and forced self-revelation. This is the most complex subtheme, I think, and the one that is least-resolved at the end of the series. There are deep layers of deception: the beautiful, Christie-worthy Xorn deception (“When X Is Not X”–oh yeah, you think?); the deception of Slick, which Quentin Quire blasts through; the deception of Quentin himself, which the Stepford Cuckoos decide to plow through for reasons far removed from Xavier’s dream; the psychic affair, which I really do think is the heart of the series, and which begins because of the self-revelation forced on Scott by En Sabah Nur (I think this is a fair characterization even if you think, as I do, that he’s using his possession as an excuse); the Beast’s lying to the press about his sexual orientation. And there’s the constant deception in which Charles Xavier pretends he’s not a mutant running a school for mutants, and the deeply ambiguous circumstances in which that particular pretense is shattered.

These deceptions allow Morrison to set up lovely parallels. The Special Class parallels the original X-Men (superstrength, eyeblasts, telepathy, wings–c’mon man, do you need an ice mutant before you see the connection?), but they become Magneto’s first and key recruits. Quentin Quire’s gang also parallels the X-Men–they’re the ones that say, “We’re the new X-Men!”, after all. But the Special Class are far more important in the end. Their storyline emphasizes the imperfection of the Xavier School (where kids mock Angel and Beak–have I mentioned that “Some Angels Falling” is my favorite issue of the entire Morrison run?) and the heroism of the students who defend the school that almost rejected them. (“Xavier School is the best school!”)

Oh, there are so many nice character moments. There’s that teachers’ conference where Scott and Emma call for greater order in the school, even though, with their affair just starting, they are the most obvious representatives of disorder. There’s the fact that Scott’s relationships finally almost make sense. There’s the sweet courtship of Angel and Beak, where she’s striving for plausible deniability and he is just in abandoned bliss until she turns up pregnant. There’s the focus on the little guys: the Special Class, sure, but also the duct-tape-and-chewing-gum team of X-Men in the final battle against Magneto, including a random human NYC cop. There are the U-Men, who I think show a much more nuanced, envious, hateful yet needy perspective on the old standard “X-Men as racial minorities” trope. The U-Men are complicated in the way that the real world is complicated.

AND THEN WHAT? AND THEN WHAT? New X-Men is more reactionary than revolutionary. It consistently shows human revolutions as prompted by personal weakness (I’d like to smack GM for the “Afterschool Special” denouement of the Riot at Xavier’s storyline). The final scenes, in which the world breaks out of its rut and moves into a new and better path, are only made possible by the intervention of a superhuman freakazoid force. I truly hope I am not the only one who growled and sighed at this development.

Don’t get me wrong: If we have to have the Phoenix–and Morrison’s modus operandi, twisting every canonical or played-out X-storyline to fit his own themes, suggests we must–then I guess this might be the way to do it. Maybe.

But it still left a really sour taste in my mouth. All the prior issues had shown a rather lovely balance between keeping the X-Men in character and using their typical storylines to express Morrison’s personal themes of generational conflict, rejection of violence, and the difficulty of knowing who one is and what one is to do.

And then at the end the Phoenix comes and slaps Scott Summers upside the head until he says, OK, I will mess with Emma after all. Grrrrr. Maybe it is my unusually depressive mindset, but I would really prefer something that would not require The Intervention Of The Phoenix!!! If you’d asked me what was most likely, based on what we knew of his character, I would have predicted that he would reject Emma even though she was obviously very, very good for him. Scott is not good at making the right choices about his romantic life. To have the Phoenix yank him into the right choice because otherwise the future will suck! seemed really, really cheap to me, and a basic denial of the importance that Morrison had placed on minor characters’ choices throughout the rest of the series. I mean, if the Phoenix just fixes everything she doesn’t like, why does it matter what Beak decides to do?

So. Morrison’s run was challenging–it zeroed in on the biggest problem for any mainstream superhero comic, the inevitable bathos of these “reruns of your grief”–and it was often beautiful, especially towards the end. (Although I still think “Some Angels Falling” is the perfect marriage–eek, bad metaphor–of art and storyline. But I accept that I read this story at a time when it had a deep, harsh, personal resonance, and I probably can’t convince anyone who read the story without that resonance, nor do I especially want to.) But in the end I think there was less here than met the eye.

I mean, I could talk about a lot of stuff. There are fairly obvious Gnostic notes in NXM. And anti-Gnostic notes: It’s pretty clear that the people trying to escape contamination by the material world are the bad guys. There are lovely reflections and echoes (I think “Teaching Children About Fractals” is the best-named issue of the series). The conceit of the series–that one could create a coherent X-Men narrative while undermining every previous standard X-Men stock plot–is awesome and I still laugh just thinking about it. So audacious!

But it didn’t, I think, quite come off. NXM should have been important in its own right, but I think in the end it is only important as The Last X-Men Story. I really dig the X-Men, so I’m okay with that–and the truly sweet grasp Morrison has on the characters makes every page a rewarding read–but I can’t help feeling that this series should have been something bigger.

Prove me wrong?


Browse Our Archives