Way back in the New Mutants, Cable let it slip that he had a son. The revelation wasn't explored so as to let some future author do whatever with the information, as Cable was still incredibly mysterious. What happened was a slight retcon: Tyler was revealed to have been like a son. Cable fought alongside the boy and was shaken up when Stryfe perverted Tyler's mind. It wasn't much later that we learn that Tyler was in fact Cable's son. Cable kept lying about Tyler's true relation because he didn't want his young team getting too emotionally attached to him. In truth, Tyler was Cable's son, Stryfe kidnapped him and altered his mind, and Cable chose a team mate over his son. This decision would turn Tyler against Cable, leading to the creation of the arms dealer and big-time rival of Cable, Tolliver. Tolliver was a thorn in Cable's side for quite some time, but Cable soon "killed" Tolliver. Tolliver didn't die and Tyler lived on in hopes of ruining his father's life.
It wasn't long after Jeph Loeb started on Cable's solo book that Tyler's history got theoretically (but never confirmationally) retconned. Cable dropped several hints that he wasn't Tyler's actual father. Cable once said he raised Tyler without the emotional words of a father. We then learn that Aliya (Tyler's mother and Cable's wife) had been abducted by Stryfe and possibly raped. This sensationalization of Tyler's history was completely unnecessary when his past was already incredibly tragic. As it is, Tyler must have known about this new pedigree. He mentions to Cable that he (Tyler) should be in-line to take on the mantle of Apocalypse. As such, he acts like Apocalypse in slaughtering innocents and trying to acquire his own Horsemen.
Tyler is often thought of as some unstable madman with these apocalyptic musings. He, however, isn't far from the truth if the Loeb-ian retcon holds true. Stryfe was the child Apocalypse chose to "succeed" the throne in the Askani future. What this really entailed was augmenting Stryfe's power and transferring the essence of Apocalypse to the boy Stryfe. This failed and Apocalypse died (thanks to the efforts of Cable, Slym, and Redd). The new rulers of the future didn't figure Stryfe into their plans and he had to plot behind the scenes and engage in acts of anarchy, all while believing that he should be the rightful ruler of the land. If Stryfe really fathered Tyler, it's only natural that Tyler would think that he was the rightful heir to Apocalypse once Stryfe was gone. These aren't lunatic notions. They are legit. It may seem like Tyler's actions as Genesis were deranged and psychotic, but they would make perfect sense as an heir of Stryfe, the heir of Apocalypse. Tyler's acts as Genesis are truly horrifying, but they can be accepted if Loeb's interpretation holds water (though we'll never know; Tyler is dead and nobody really cares anymore). If Loeb's ideas are crap (in my opinion they are), then yes, Tyler was off his friggin' rocker.
Start the Conversation
I'm right in the middle of the Herbert George Wells classic "The Time Machine." The thing I love about the novel so far is that the time traveler has arrived in a strange future in which there are no records about civilization's progression but the man still speculates as to the conditions. He doesn't just accept the Eloi's docile mannerisms at face value; he does some critical thinking about why the human race has become so child-like centuries into the future. The same goes for the Morlocks, the underground dwellers.
The Morlocks are citizens of an underground network that are like the guys shown above. Why do they live underground? According to the time traveler's musings, society was split. The Eloi, the above-ground-dwellers, were the social elite. They could work in airy spaces and have free commune with each other. The Morlock predecessors were the grunts of society. As civilization progressed, they were forced to work underground, a lower form of life doing a lower form of work. Form met function when their factories and such were moved underground. As the centuries moved on, the Morlocks became a breed that stayed underground because their bodies evolved to hate the sun (and wear red skirts, according to this movie still).
Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the X-Men has run into the one form of the Morlocks or another. Whether they be the underground dwellers, afraid of exposing themselves, or the more brazen versions that try to force themselves upon society, they are the same: hideous or malformed mutants.
Like the Morlocks of literary fiction fame, the Marvel mutants were forced to live underground because of another type of social malady: it wasn't necessarily their propensity for being poor, stupid, or incapable of Eloi-like work, it was because society wouldn't be able to accept their appearances. They lived in the sewers and made rare forages above ground. Regardless, the subterranean lifestyle was spurred by social contempt, an unfortunate part of being imperfect humans ourselves.
Start the Conversation
I sometimes patrol blogs to see what's going on in other Viner's heads. I can sometimes hit gold (like A_O_N's blog on annuals or thehummingbirds psycho-analytic views). I mostly hit crap from users trying to fill the blog quest with stuff so lame that it can't be called a web log (or blog, for those not in the know), just filler. For example:
Alexss - Thanks for blogging about... medicine dosage? Examstring - Thanks for blogging about Microsoft's training manual. I'll make sure I get that 8 hours of laboratory practice. Lex Diamonds - Thanks for nothing. Really, one blog is nothing and the other is almost nothing.
These aren't bad people. They are just bad at blogging.
And now that I think of it, this blog is wasting time. Irony sucks.
A heads up: Post submitted with mild sarcasm and good intentions.
I first joined this site as a way to improve the coverage of my favorite mutants, those found in X-Force. The issue summaries were mostly missing or incorrect; characters had awful grammar; I also wanted to help wayward readers (like myself had been) decide if it was worth it to get those character appearances in sundry issues (like Cable in that one Quasar issue [don't]). I joined and started making a difference in this small part of the world.
Then I found the Wiki Tasks. I left the content tasks alone and went straight for the formatting tasks. I formatted a couple pages and closed a fair share of tasks. I noticed, however, that in these pages I was formatting that there were plenty of other things that I could change to make the page better (outside the task). I am now appalled to see that, because of this perfectionist penchant, I am the top contributor on the Deceased Characters page (right under that VictoriaGrey_20, who has had her points reset to zero). I have also earned just over 1,000 points for Venom, a character I have never, ever read, but whose page was so muddled that I couldn't help but manicure parts of it.
The reason this irks me is because my homepage is deceptive. I am a Cable fan. I have not amassed anything close to the points I've earned for the aforementioned pages. If someone were to look at my page then they'd see a guy obsessed with death and Venom, with a slight interest in Cable and some story arcs. I guess I'm mostly still in the high school mind-set: what you see is what you get, even though we all know appearances can be deceiving. Oh well.
The question: What Wiki Tasks have earned you the most deceptive points?
(A special thanks to Red L.A.M.P. for letting me get my English degree groove on with all those past Marvel tasks. It's his fault this was written. [Quietly sobs as "post blog" is hit...])
Also, jloneblackheart has a post in a similar vein asking for your general points from characters you don't actually edit. Check it out here.
I've been retooling a lot of the Askani timeline stuff and I've noticed a big misconception: Askani, as a character, is highly misunderstood. The character never, I repeat, never appears in the Askani timeline. Never. Her sisterhood? Yes. Her? No, not unless it is in the briefest of flashbacks.
Askani is a name given to two different women at two very different times. The first Askani is charged with coming to the past so as to protect baby Cable at a critical juncture in history. Askani is not a true being. She is energy with a body, if that makes any sense. (It doesn't to me, but that's how they explain it.) Sad story, Askani fails. Baby Nathan is infected by a techno-organic virus and he must be taken to the future where technology can save him. This Askani dies. Her body was given up for the mission. The mission is over, so is her life.
The second Askani is also sent back in time as a being of energy (again, somehow in a body), but she is to protect Cyclops and Jean Grey from Stryfe, whose mind has been inside Cable and has been awakened by Mr. Sinister. She also fails because Cable's son Tyler gets in the way. He keeps her trapped so that she can't warn anybody about Cable's new condition. Tyler's plan: Stryfe (in Cable's body) is surely going to want to find Tyler and Tyler will be able to kill both Stryfe and Cable at the same time. Stryfe shoots Askani, but before she goes the way of dispersed energy, she is able to probe Stryfe's mind and get him to let go of Cable. She dies, too.
Yes, crazy stories (but all very good reads). Just let it be known that Askani is not some person that happens to represent everything that the clan does. She existed as two separate women who both failed in their prime directives, yet were also incredibly influential in the grand scheme of things.
Post script: Some have ventured that Jenskot was an Askani because she also traveled to the past to perform a certain task. This is false, however, when you compare her visit with the two legitimate Askani women. Jenskot was actually sent. She had her body. The others were energy forms. Also, she wasn't trying to prevent something in the past to influence the future, she was trying to prevent something in the future to influence the future.
Katy Perry has intrigued me for a while. First, when asked what her favorite Beatles song was, she said, "Happiness is a Warm Gun." Mine, too. This didn't make me like her any more, but it at least put her on my radar. I've noticed, as I have casually traipsed around this interweb, that Katy Perry is like any other pop star, i.e. she uses hot guys in her videos. This makes sense because her fans are mostly girls who like hot guys. I have wondered, however, how these sweetheart songs sung to hot guys goes over with her husband.
You see, Katy Perry is married to Russell Brand, one of my favorite comedians (though he can be pretty crude at times). Russell would be the first to admit that he does not hold a candle to the hot guys in Katy's videos. I'm sure, being a part of the media machine himself, he would fully understand that fans of Katy's music want to see hot guys and he is okay with it. But honestly, listen to "Teenage Dream" and imagine Katy singing to Russell in their house. Does that really fit?
I've had these odd thoughts with every new song Katy has released. (I listen to pop radio to see what those darn kids are listening to nowadays.) "She's singing this to Russell?" I'd think. Then, her newest release came out. "E.T." is about her love affair with an alien. Now she's pegging Russell right. It's tragic, but look at the guy. I can finally, legitimately see her singing this song to him at home. It makes me feel good that they have a song now.
Having just reread X-Force #23, I can honestly say that this is the issue that made me like Domino. The lady is 100% awesome. The attitude, sarcasm, and Greg Capullo's art made me a very nervous 14 year old (you know, back when I originally read this stuff over a decade ago). Honestly, the cover should say it all. Sadly, Greg's run on X-Force would soon be over and I'd be subject to unworthier depictions. And that's really all I've got to say about that (because I'm a married man and Domino is just an imaginary person).
Start the Conversation
Justin Beiber has a new movie coming out, "Never Say Never." I let my mind wander over this strange title today in my Criminal Law class. (I wasn't spacing out in class. There was a very off-topic discussion going on about gun laws.) Anyway, the title of the movie, if you say it out loud, is "Say." Think about it: you are being told to never say "never." So, you shouldn't say it. The crappy thing is that the movie has "never" on both sides of "say," but you aren't allowed to say "never." So you simply say "Say."
The fun part is that you are not supposed to say the one word. You can't say "never." But the title uses the word twice to inform you. "Never Say Never." In essence, two words are used to tell you that you shouldn't say one word, so in the end you are saying no words where words exists. Sure, in print the movie's name is "Never Say Never," but in telling your friends about the new movie, it's just "Say." And this is what an English degree got me: daydreams about Justin Beiber movie titles. I'm living the life.
I've got some beef with Cyclops. In the Kings of Pain story arc, Proteus is brought back to life and wreaks havoc. All the boy wants is some order in life. Marvel Girl (or Phoenix, or Jean Grey, or whatever name you know her by) glimpsed into the being's mind and saw that true happiness came while Proteus was dead. Cyclops is immediately for talking Proteus into killing himself. Does this seem counter to anyone? The Boy Scout of mutants wants take the easy way out. Others in the group want to explore other options. Nothing comes close to changing Cyke's mind.
Align this story with what happens to Ship in Endgame. Ship gets infected with some type of virus and starts attacking anything and anyone. As a matter of fact, Ship is going to explode if something isn't resolved soon. The amazing thing: Cyclops is torn out of shape at the fact that he's got to lose this sentient space ship. Sure, they've been "friends," but we are talking about saving the world. Why the discrepancy of being willing to sacrifice the life of a boy but not the "life" of a ship?
One thing I do know, the Proteus stigma doesn't last for long. Cyclops is at least able to make the sacrifice when it is his own son, so I guess my beef isn't as big as I'd thought. Yet the differences still intrigue me. Of course, I've looked at this with a more objective eye. What are the subjective thoughts?