Legion World Forums LEGION CLUBHOUSE The Legion of Super-Heroes Long Live the Legion! Teenagers From the Future--Available Now!

There are pages from Legion comics interspersed into the text every so often, where it's appropriate to illustrate this point or that.

I know for a fact that Santa ordered this for me from Amazon.

Well, I finally got my contributor's copy! Turns out they had misspelled my name in the original edition and waited until they had made some corrections before sending it. It was worth the wait.

This is a truly wonderful collection of 18 essays (18!) that cover many different aspects of the Legion. I've read only a half dozen articles so far (besides my own!), and I'm impressed with the insights that people offer on topics ranging from the role of women in the early Legion to Shooter's incorporation of the Marvel style of storytelling in his stories. There are so many points that make me think, "I never thought of that!"

My favorite article so far is Scipio Garling's essay on the Legion's connection to both the JSA and JLA. Garling points out something else I'd never thought of: that the JSA was more of an amateur crime-fighting organization and the JLA a more professional one in terms of their attitudes toward being super-heroes. He argues convincingly that the Legion served as a bridge between the two, since the Legion first appeared before the JLA and reflected both the "clubby" feel of the JSA and the more professional organization-with-rules approach of the JLA.

What insights has this book given you?

I borrowed it from a friend and am still reading it.

One author compared Giffen's early "crisp and clean artwork" to that of "former Legion artist, Jim Starlin." I'm pretty sure he/she meant Jim Sherman, right?

Also, one footnote mentions that Ferro Lad wore a mask to cover his "scarred face." This implies that his face was wounded or injured, perhaps in the line of duty, which was not the case. He was just born with a hideously deformed, inhuman face.

Re: Aging comic book characters. This argument comes up again and again, yet I never hear anyone make what seems an obvious point to me. Although we readers only get to observe the characters' exploits on a monthly basis, it's rare that a month elapses within the context of the story between issues. In fact, it's usually a mere matter of seconds or minutes that pass from the end of one issue to the beginning of the next, or at most a few days, so naturally the characters have not aged 20 years in the course of a 20 year publication schedule.

Minor quibbles, aside I'm enjoying the book a lot.

I still have the last quarter of the book to complete, but my favorite essay so far is the Amethyst/Legion connection. I missed many of the Amethyst stories, but always liked the concept and found it interesting how it meshed well with the Legion. The essay gives a lot of background on both Amethyst and the Legion's dealings with magic, and shows how the two very much relate to each other.

I also appreciated the essay on Keith Giffen's experiment of the Legion in dystopia with 5YL. It gave some interesting explanations and insights on the motivating forces that brought about much of what happened in that boot. Although my opinion of that boot is mostly unfavorable (like Mr. Giffen should have created his own new characters a la Alan Moore's Watchmen than dragged the Legion through the mud...), the essay slightly makes the whole circumstance easier to swallow (for me) than before.

I'm looking forward to reading opinions about this latest Mr. Waid boot as well.

I'm still waiting for a copy I ordered to arrive at one of my LCS.

I've noticed a few errors in some of the articles, too, Jim, but they do not detract from the wonderful job everyone did.

You're correct that a month does not pass between issues. Since the Legion is set in the future, however, the writers are free to advance the timeline at any speed they choose, or not at all. I hope I've made my case that the benefits of advancing the timeline, however fast or slow, far outweigh the questionable merits of rebooting the franchise.

One of the real treasures for me is getting to read articles such as this one and see different aspects of the Legion in a new light. I never read Amethyst, other than the preview, and never found the concept remotely appealing or relevant to the Legion. But Lanny Rose did such a wonderful job in describing the Amethyst connection that it now seems to fit into the Legion's universe more naturally.

Another unexpected surprise was Matthew E's article on generational theory. Although I've made my feelings about the threeboot known, I enjoyed Matthew's description of the Waid era as an "Awakening." Matthew almost made me want to hunt down and read those early issues. (Almost . . . )

I did, however, hunt down and read one of the books that Matthew cites, "Generations" by William Strauss and Neil Howe. Their work is very intriguing and insightful. Thanks for the tip, Matthew.

Entirely my pleasure. That's the best review I could ask for, right there.

i'll get my copy next friday

I despise reboots, so no argument there. Which article is yours? I've not read them all yet.

Having picked up the electronic version of this book recently, I was keen to delve into the essay regarding Giffen's run

Revisionism, Radical Experimentation, and Dystopia in Giffen’s Legion by Julian Darius

After numerous references on how popular sci-fi had turned to dystopian sci-fi in the ‘80s (oddly omitting ET, Cocoon, My stepmother is an Alien, Return of the Jedi etc.) the author begins to talk about the changes to the Legion in Giffen’s run.

“The Legionnaires themselves were radically changed – typically for the worse.” An example of such a Legionnaire is given as Shrinking Violet.

“Perhaps most memorably, Shrinking Violet, a cute and innocent girl with the power to shrink, was shown to have been at the same battle, which left her horribly psychologically and facially scarred. She further sported short hair, rather than her long and glamorously flowing hair of years past, and seemed to be a lesbian.”

I had to reread the line. The author is suggesting that Salu Digby being a lesbian is in some way a change for the worse. Additionally, in highlighting her as being the most memorable example of the Legion’s turn “for the worse”, the author suggests that such a trait is a particularly strong example of the cast’s descent into “some dark, twisted dystopia.”

To further illustrate the point, the author makes an analogy between the generally utopian ideals of Legion and Star Trek. “Imagine the reaction to a new Star Trek series depicting the aftermath of the utter collapse of the Federation of Planets- and showing established characters scattered, traumatized, even sometimes corrupted or mutilated … and Uhura a scarred lesbian.” Once again Shrinking Violet being a lesbian is some dreadful slight on the character and a “corruption” that couldn’t, or perhaps even shouldn’t, exist in a utopian sci-fi universe.

What offensive rubbish.

Not only is it offensive, it’s also wrong in terms of Legion history. Shrinking Violet’s relationship with Ayla Ranzz blossomed way back in the much more optimistic Paul Levitz run.
Salu’s psychological transformation is firmly rooted in her time as a captive of Imskian separatists. Those months in sensory deprivation were again back in the supposedly more optimistic Levitz issues.

Instead of being left “horribly psychologically and facially scarred,” Giffen’s run shows the character stand up bravely for her principles in the face of a warmongering planets and military necessity and justice. Violet wears her (not horrible) scar as a badge of regret at her actions in the conflict.

The Shrinking Violet example above is just one where the article feels that the creative team also went in to change characters “typically for the worse.” This seems fairly subjective and based on whether the changes were popular or personally favourable to the author.
Conflict is at the heart of practically all stories. In a team that was once the heart of Action and Adventure this is certainly the case. Therefore, there are going to be character changing events on a regular basis.

Giffen’s deconstruction of the Legion is certainly a major part of the run in v4. It began at least as far back as Giffen’s involvement with Levitz following the Time Trapper finale in v3 #50.

But unlike many deconstructionist attempts at comics, that don’t get further than hasty demolition, Giffen has a clear concept of the ideals and principles at the heart of the team.
The end of the Levitz run and the Giffen run has left the galaxy a darker, more desperate place. But it’s also one where hope shines all the more brightly for the darkness surrounding it.

Instead of some deliberate attempt to demolish previous characteristics of the cast, Giffen’s Legion works best because the ideals it is trying to reveal use plausible extensions of their previous portrayals.

Under Levitz, Shrinking Violet had become very focused on being a very self motivated, reliant almost militaristic person. In the very first issue of V4 Giffen has provided a planetary conflict as a platform to take these traits to a logical conclusion. Violet’s Legion principles win through.

The article mentions that Cosmic Boy had lost his powers during a “particularly grisly military battle.” This was a battle that you don’t actually get to see for many issues beyond sound effects. The article suggests that a grisly battle furthered the dark turn of the book, but it wasn’t shown in such a fashion. The adult legion story in the Levitz written #300 was far more unsettling when it came to the Legion at war.

Cosmic Boy may have lost his powers, but they are shown to have been the least important part of him. It is his unerring ability to do the right thing that is his greatest attribute.

As unpopular as the portrayal of Sun Boy was, it was also an extension of previously shown attributes. Sun Boy had previously been shown as a terrible Legion leader, therefore it’s no surprise to see that the team was not helped by him being in charge during the 5 year gap. Sun Boy’s womanising is also shown in his relationship with Circe, who dresses up as his fantasies of other Legionnaires and affiliates.

More centrally, Sun Boy’s ego is at the heart of his relationship with Earthgov. Having lost his self esteem and his heroic career, he is far more willing to listen to the prospect of getting it all back.

Only then does he begin to make poor choices to keep that opportunity. Events result in him breaking free, if only for it to be too little too late. Sun Boy was a popular character, but the ideas behind this arc were not only strong but had links to the character’s past.

A final example is Ultra Boy, who was involved in a pirate/smuggling operation well before Giffen started writing the series. Even Levitz wasn’t the writer of much of the Reflecto Saga. Under the Giffen/Bierbaum team Ultra Boy would become one of the book’s most popular characters, showing many positive attributes even as he coped with a great loss.

Deconstruction is not necessarily wanton destruction. Conflict, even including traumatic change, can be created without having to ignore the basis of the character being used.

Brilliant analysis, thothkins.

Man, I'm going to have to re-read that article.

I think the anaylysis might be closer to the facts than the analysis of the analysis. If there's "offensive rubbish" to be found, then it could as well be in Giffin's interpretation of Vi's lesbianism or it could also be said that thothkins committed the same offense by tying Vi's lesbianism to her time in the isolation tanks, as opposed to the war crimes she felt she committed.

Darius' assertion that Giffen's story implied Vi's "lesbianism" was "caused" by the trauma of the war wouldn't be far fetched from many beliefs still held today, that homosexuality is chosen or is the result of an event as opposed to a natural way of being. Homosexuality has certainly been depicted that way in popular culture and in scientific papers, this means of depiction is historical fact and it wouldn't be unexpected from a comicbook writer to do the same. Whether that was Giffins' intent? I think that's what Darius was speculating on. Darius didn't assert that this was real life fact, only that GIFFEN was making this assertion. That's how I read it, anyhow. I didn't see any offense to be taken.

I would say none of the comments were made to depict what "caused" her lesbianism, which would be an offense, but were made to discuss what events enable or encourage ANYONE to lead ANY characteristic of their being, openly or in hiding.

It's not even remotely rare for a human after a traumatic personal event to take the leap that life is too short and it's time to ignore social pressures and lead one's life in the way they feel it is meant to be led. I don't find offense in either thothkin's or Darius' or Giffin's assertion that there was an event that led to Vi living her life openly as she felt it was meant to be lived. I don't know ANYONE that is perfectly sure, who they are. Any one of us can change on a whim or due to an event.

As far as historical accuracy,

yes there was a surge of dystopian popularity in the mid 70's and 80's, perhaps due to the success of Clockwork Orange. Pre WWI, post WWII there can also be found surges. Not unexpected to find another post Vietnam. Surge doesn't mean EVERY popular novel and story follows the same route.

Vi led one of the more interesting life journeys, in my opinion. A novella isolating that life I think would be very interesting from a "factual" POV and I'm sure we'd all fill in details in our own little ways.

I didn’t tie Vi’s lesbianism to her time spent in the sensory deprivation tanks. I tied Vi’s psychological transformation to her time in the sensory deprivation tanks.

I specified what I felt her rehabilitation from that experience had resulted in when I said “Under Levitz, Shrinking Violet had become very focused on being a very self motivated, reliant almost militaristic person.”

I don’t think Vi’s time in the tanks had a bearing on her sexuality. From “tying Vi's lesbianism to her time in the isolation tanks, as opposed to the war crimes she felt she committed“ there’s the suggestion of a link between Vi’s sexuality and actions taken in the Imsk/Braal war. That’s not a link I would have made either. Additionally, Vi and Ayla clearly had a relationship well before the events of the war.

Not only have I not “committed the same offense” in linking sexuality with sensory deprivation but I don’t see where Giffen has either, From the issue where we see Vi & Ayla standing at the statues on Winath to their conversation following Earth’s destruction, Giffen’s run shows them as having a very strong relationship. I can’t recall any mention in the comic equating Vi’s sexuality with the tanks or the Imsk/Braal war.

The author, not Giffen and not the author implying something of Giffen, makes a clear connection between Vi being a lesbian and Giffen’s run changing the characters “typically for the worse.” Vi’s sexuality is repeatedly singled out as Vi is used as the most memorable example. Vi’s sexuality is then used in an analogy with the cast of another idealistic sci-fi universe. In all instances the use is in negative terms.

It is the author’s consistent use of Vi’s sexuality in a negative context I objected to.

“Imagine the reaction to a new Star Trek series depicting the aftermath of the utter collapse of the Federation of Planets- and showing established characters scattered, traumatized, even sometimes corrupted or mutilated … and Uhura a scarred lesbian.”

The reviewer's concern seems to be the change in established parameters. I think he's quite correct as to the public response if what he describes had happened in the Star Trek universe. Not unusual the rants on these boards when a writer's characterizations seem out of line. Whereas the reviewer may have facts wrong, he is responding to those incorrect facts, not the reality of the story. The writer even uses an adjective with "lesbian." His objection (baring sloppy writing), was perhaps to the scarring and the "fact" that she hadn't previously been depicted as either.

And are the facts wrong? Ayla and Vi had perhaps previously been depicted as friends, a relationship as you say but I'm not recalling if any on-panel romantic or sexual scenes had preceded Giffen's storyline?

If I were to accuse the reviewer of anything it would be of tying the hands of writers to depict change with reason. I can honestly see objection to writers that seem to use established characters to write the book they really want to write, as opposed to the one they were hired to write but if the change in characterization is due to on-panel events, seems fair game and has more potential for enjoyment (or hate) of the storyline.

Interesting dialogue.

It would be interesting to have the reviewer available to respond to clarifications but for me, I would have to apply too much spin to the review to say it was offensive.

I can only reiterate my previous posts where I've said that it's the author's consistent connection of someone's sexuality with various negative concepts (quoted above) and as part of a major theme of "dystopia" that I found objectionable. That's the nub of it for me.



I can only say that I'll respond to something based on an understanding that the writer has done the necessary work to get the facts right, and not have to second guess which "reality of the story" they may be living in and impact of those incorrect facts.

In this case the author is basing his most memorable example of a "traumatized" changed Giffen character on things that happened in an entirely different volume.



I don't think that at any point Ayla and Vi call themselves lovers in the Giffen run either. The first issue continues very much as Levitz left them.

Yet, few have any trouble reading between the lines in the Giffen run. Unfortunately, reading between the lines was what you had to do. You just had to read a little further into those lines in the time of Levitz as writer in v3 than in Giffen's early v4 but it was still there. Which is why seeing them together on Winath, or Vi's letter to Ayla made perfect sense.

The author has chosen to link Vi as a lesbian to the book being "suddenly plunged into some dark, twisted dystopia" by making Vi the prime example of such things.

I can't think of many brighter, loving optimistic relationships in comics, than Salu and Ayla, so I disagree completely. I even disagree with "plunged" as it carried on from a previous volume.

As per my previous posts, there are plenty of optimistic positives within the characters. It's a mistake just to lump everything together into some deconstructed (destroyed), dystpoian catch-all.



Hopefully my last posts gave examples of just that sort of work carried out by the creative team in in the Giffen run. Like the direction or not, they really, really knew their Legion.