Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities The All Avengers Thread

Agreed about the need for unlikable characters to spice things up.

And yes, it would be great if Cobie would put in his two cents.

There's a thread in the Visionaries of Tomorrow forum about the whole Progenitor thing and Andy Lanning's IMO very eloquent defense of it. I think I'll bump up that thread.

Oh, Coooooobiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeee...

Lardy and Fanfie,

I enjoyed both of your Korvac reviews. You each nailed the positives and negatives of the story, yet provide two very different views. I think you're both correct.

My memories of the story match Lardy's description. It was a very long and convoluted story that lacked cohesiveness. At the time, I thought this was an attempt at realism because in the real world going after an enemy or a criminal takes time, and there are a lot of other distractions along the way. Too, I thought Shooter was trying to outdo the nine-part Kree-Skrull War by writing a ten-part epic. (The KSW had it's own problems, but I digress . ..)

I'm older, perhaps wiser, and a bit more educated now, and I have a different view of the story. I think it had a lot of unnecessary turns and lacked a satisfying ending. So, the Avengers all get killed and, in his last act of humanity, Korvac brings them back to life?? (I'm going by memory here.) WTF?? And very convenient.

I didn't have a problem with Corina's lack of faith in Michael proving to be his undoing. I thought that was a very human angle to pursue. (I agree with the creep factor of their relationship, though.)

Fanfie did a great job of dissecting the story's weaknesses, and I loved her comparison of the story to serving McDonald's on a silver platter.

I, too, liked Gyrich, though, for the reasons Lardy states: he was a non-powered, non-evil antagonist the Avengers couldn't fight. His subplot also made good use of readers' suspicions over the government in the years following Watergate. But the best and ironic part of that storyline was that the Avengers brought it on themselves. Their mansion, full of national security secrets, was constantly being invaded by villains! Hawkeye even left the front door open, for crying out loud. The Avengers had long seemed to take their responsibilities as heroes for granted--members constantly left and rejoined--so it was fitting to see them taken down a peg or two. Of course, when the government takes over, inefficiency reigns.

All in all, the Korvac War wasn't a classic, but it wasn't terrible. It had several memorable moments.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, He Who.

Good point about Shooter possibly trying to bring more realism into superhero comics. The older I get, the more I agree with Alan Moore that the framework of superhero comics can only support a certain degree of realism. In a way, I think some of the things Shooter did in his Avengers stories are analogous to the horrible things DC has been doing to their universe in the past decade. Lardy made a good defense of Hank Pym's outburst, but I think it's rather telling that Shooter has deliberately distanced himself from that story, going so far as to blame it on the story's penciller, Bob Hall.

Good point, too, about Gyrich, though I still think Shooter execution of this idea is too ham-fisted to work. That said, I think Roger Stern did a great job with the Sikorsky scenes of building on what Shooter had done before with Gyrich. Without Gyrich's approach to compare Sikorsky's approach to, the latter's scenes might have come off duller than they did.

I'm more of a shades of grey guy in terms of seeing some of the good in stories that might be weak overall and vice versa. Fickles....well, she's more black or white from what I've seen. Fair or unfair, Le Fique?



I had some real issues with KSW as well, Huey. Feel free to look back several pages to see and respond, if you'd like. I started my Avengers spree with KSW and have reviewed everything that happened afterward!



I'm generally not a fan of stories where characters are killed for shock value and their lives restored by some cheat by the stories end. It was one of the cheesier tropes of the '70s and '80s. Unfortunately, it's gotten even worse in the past decade or so and the en vogue trope of temp deaths that typically last a year or less to get media attention and wank up some sales. By comparison, I guess the older trope was much preferable.



mmmmmmm......now, I want son McDonald's!





The main flaw I can see about Gyrich's character in hindsight is that I can never recall his hardass facade ever coming down in any of his appearances, IIRC. That makes him pretty 2-dimensional in a way that even similar characters like J. Jonah Jameson have transcended. That's from memory, of course, and I've no idea whatever happened to the character. But I do appreciate the idea behind him and wouldn't mind see him popping up again in some Marvel book I already by, perhaps with some fleshing out.



That's one reason Gyrich works in the Avengers milieu. It was a logical storytelling leap.



That sums it up pretty well. It certainly had its moments but needed more care and development than it got.

Definitely fair. I do see things like that in black and white. Truth is, I used to see EVERYTHING in black and white, but I'm more mature now.




I'm really glad you posted this, Lardy, because you help me pinpoint exactly what I dislike most about Gyrich. He started out as a caricature and, as far as I know, has remained one for almost 40 years.

Be sure to bring your own silver platter.

BTW, I agree about Gyrich as a character. I was never fond of him as a character, but I didn't have to be. He served a valuable story purpose.

Not ever character needs to be well rounded. That said, since Marvel did so much more with him after the Avengers run, it would have been nice to see different sides of him. He reminded me of Colonel Flagg on M*A*S*H: a deliberate caricature who, if taken seriously, exhibits some serious psychological issues.

Gyrich's Wikipedia entry says that Shooter based Gyrich on himself, according to PAD! The entry reminds me vaguely that PAD humanized Gyrich a little by showing that Gyrich had cared for his father who had Alzheimer's.

The article seems to show some fires and misfires in Gyrich's characterization, including skirting the edge of full-on villainy...which is something he should never do, imo.

I'd forgotten about PAD's humanizing Gyrich in the last few issues of Hulk that he wrote.

That reminds me, are we still going to do the PAD Hulk re-read starting in the winter?

Possibly. As long as I can locate it. Plus, I'd probably rather we do it in segments. That's a looooooooong run!

Doing it in segments is fine by me. What I think is amazing is how consistent the run is for nearly 100 consecutive issues. Then there's about 30 issues which I think are a bit of a slog to get through, and then there's the last 12 or so issues, which are a return to form, cut tragically short by the stupidity of Marvel editorial.

My run is probably a bit incomplete toward the end. I actually dropped the book some time during Heroes Reborn when the book was really dull. I got the final arc with Adam Kubert for sure. Not sure exactly how many issues I was off the book.

We shall see. Maybe we could do like Greg Burgas did when he reviewed the run for the Comics Should Be Good blog, and jump right from 426 (the epilogue to the Fall of the Pantheon) to 454 (the first Adam Kubert issue).

Lardy,
I didn't go all the way back to the Kree-Skrull War, but I did read your reviews of Avengers # 116-135 and GS 1-4. (Why did I start there? Because Avengers # 116 was the first issue I ever read and so it stands out as a starting point for me. Fittingly, the review is also on page 116 of this thread!)

I'm blown away by the level of detail and commentary you've put into these reviews. There are so many things I remember, and some I don't. (For example, I don't remember Wanda taking down Dormammu a second time in GS 4, but I do remember the double wedding--and that, to me, was the most important part.) I also pretty much agree with your opinions, although I liked the Zodiac story better than you did.

Those were my formative years as a comic book fan, and Steve Englehart provided a wonderful incubator. It truly was remarkable that he wrote Mantis' story as one complete novel, with beginning, middle, and end. It was also remarkable that Marvel did not revisit her for another ten years (and it's a shame that they ever did). This is truly a finished story--a rarity in comics then and now.

(It was also interesting that they didn't revisit the Black Knight until about 1983--some nine years after Defenders # 11. There was indeed a sense that these stories had finality and consequence. However, the Black Knight's stone body was reanimated--as you've no doubt since discovered--in Avengers # 157 or so.)

The Swordsman's death was another example of this finality and consequence. When all was said and done, he was probably the Avenger I most identified with during this period. He tried so hard to be a hero and kept failing, and ultimately was jilted by the woman he loved (and who, in doing so, proved she was not worthy of him). But he died a hero, and like Mantis and the Black Knight, he was not brought back. His death stuck.

The development of Wanda and Mantis also contributed to this stellar run. Over at DC, the female Legionnaires and Justice Leaguers got along famously and were always each others' best friends. But these two female Avengers did not like each other. And, more, they were competing for the same man, er, android. Soap opera, yes, but very well done. It added to the believability factor of the series.

I appreciate your comments on Avengers 133-135. I haven't thought very favorably of those issues over the years since, in my view, they drew out two origin stories much longer than necessary. (Reading these books off the stands in those days, I found it annoying to see such a villain-less story prolonged. Of course, I was only 11 at the time.) However, you're right that Englehart paces them very well and reveals a lot of rich MU history. He also weaves in other subplots (such as Wanda and Agatha, and Libra and Cotati Swordsman) to keep us intrigued.

A stellar, stellar run that was never equaled before or after. Thanks for the memories. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of your reviews, and Fanfie's and Cobie's commentary.

Just checking in to say I'm loving all the activity on this thread! I'll dig a bit deeper tomorrow when I have time.

Also glad HWW checked out down of the prior reviews and commentary!

Thanks, He Who and Cobie.

I REALLY appreciate the compliment, Huey! I put a lot of effort into these reviews (maybe TOO much! ), and having people read, respond to and enjoy them makes all the effort worth it! I really try to approach the reviews from a professional standpoint: paint a picture of the stories (going light as possible on spoilers), offer some balanced criticism and give the reader enough information to decide whether or not they want to try the material. And ideally, I'll get some thoughtful responses in turn. I can certainly expect the latter from Cobie and Fickles, but it's even better if others are inspired to join in--especially as I can somewhat predict the regulars' responses because I know their tastes very well!



Especially now....



We discussed Sword's character at length, and Cobie offered some great insights into the character's role about which I would be curious to see your opinions. But reading about his stint was one of those motivators for me when I decided to tackle this project. He was very enigmatic to me and also a curiosity as the first Avenger ever to die. (And as you say, to STAY dead--though conflicting reports of the events of "Chaos War" of a few years ago may offer a rebuttal.) In the end I exult the subtlety and restraint Englehart utilized in his portrayals of Sword and Mantis. There's a lot of subtext with those two and a lot left to readers' imaginations. I applaud that approach and the craft involved.



Often, and especially in cases like the best Spider-man tales, I find that its the interpersonal relationships or "soap opera" subplots that bring me back issue after issue, not the slugfest o' the month!



I think one of the biggest reasons I loved that sequence so much over those issues is that it is so anti-modern/2000's storytelling. Narration! Actually having stuff to READ! I've said it before, and I will again: Comics have moved TOO DAMNED FAR AWAY from narration! Sure old comics went overboard, but taking it all pretty much away isn't the solution! happy medium, anyone?!?



Only contender for me is Stern's run, especially with Buscema and Palmer. But I can't argue with the assessment!

'Bout fuggin' time!!!

I've now caught up with all of the reviews back to # 89, and while I may have more to say eventually, here are two general points:

1. I'm still wowed by Lardy's in-depth reviews, as well as Fanfie's and Cobie's commentary. Lardy has a great way of putting all of this in context and showing how each issue fits into the larger arc (or arcs). Fanfie's knowledge of writers and artists impresses me to no end. I'm pretty clueless when it comes to distinguishing what different inkers do to the same pencillers, but she has a way of explaining it that makes sense. And Cobie brings in all kinds of insights from his own experiences of reading these comics with father and his own research that are simply invaluable. Kudos to all three of you!

2. I was particularly interested in reading the different views on the Swordsman--particularly those of you who encountered Swordsman II decades later and then became curious about the original. Of course, I read these issues off the stands, so my first encounter with Swordy was in # 116 (which, as I mentioned, was also my first Avengers issue). Cobie is right that Swordy could not carry a book by himself, but then he wasn't intended to. Not every character should. (I recall a LOC comment somewhere along the line that said there was a reason why Vision and Wanda didn't have their own series--this was long before the '80s mini-series.) Not being a headline character gave Swordy a blank slate for the writers to do things with him that they couldn't do with Thor or Iron Man. It was easy to feel sorry for Swordsman because he couldn't measure up to their level, no matter how hard he tried. But at the same time, he worked harder to be a hero than any other Avenger of that period.

As a side note, while this storyline was ongoing, Marvel also reprinted the early Avengers issues in Marvel Triple Action (a misnamed series at this point). As such, I got to read Swordy's second appearance from Avengers # 20, when he infiltrates the team as a pawn of the Mandarin. In this story, he falls in love with Wanda (didn't everybody?) and this causes him to botch his attempt to blow up the Avengers. However, we're left with the idea that he's not such a bad egg after all, and there may be hope for him yet--hope that was realized in the concurrent Avengers run.

I didn't read the Swordsman's in-between appearances (e.g, the Lethal Legion) until much later, and I remember nothing of them.

It was indeed annoying that we never saw him without his mask or even learned his real name (until much later). But that only added to his mystique. I do think he's one of my favorite Avengers characters because he tried so hard to be a hero and because of his rogue past. As you note, Lardy, he killed the Nazi who shot him in # 117; even though this was never mentioned again, it was a perfectly natural response for his character and something only he would do.

So, from a broad perspective on the Korvac Saga, my feelings come really close to Lardy’s in terms of a general positive / negative view of things. Before I get into all of that, let me qualify my impressions: I read the Korvac story once, when I was about 15 years old. By then I had been an Avengers fan forever, and had grown up reading the original 60 issues or so. But by then I still hadn’t read a lot of other great Avengers eras like Englehart’s or Stern’s. At the time, I really enjoyed it as it was jam-packed with action and had a ridiculous amount of heroes, but even then I knew the plot was kind of thin.

I think it says a lot that when I did a quasi-Avengers reread about 8 years ago, I totally skipped over everything between Englehart and Stern. I didn’t even bother checking this story out again, honestly. At the time, it was a “just don’t feel like it” decision but that may say more than I’d thought.

From a broad perspective, what I like about it stays the same: first and foremost, I do think the big action finale that Lardy mentions is a pretty awesome experience. That is enhanced by the sheer number of heroes which at that point in time was still a pretty rare occurrence. That big assembly of Avengers in a way justifies the incredibly long and drawn out subplot of various Avengers going missing and then ultimately coming together at the Collector’s spaceship.

Also, the art is pretty spectacular from what I remember as well. The covers are visually striking, and there is something just incredibly pleasant about a multitude of superhero costumes with bright, contrasting colors. It certainly causes the 7 year old me to feel some primal level of happiness.

Lastly, I love the big run-up to the Korvac Saga. Not the subplots involving Michael, but rather the Collector story, and the other threats they faced where different Avengers went missing while other ones stopped in to lend a helping hand.

All of that being said, I feel all of the criticisms by Fanfie are pretty accurate. That big “showdown” that I spoke about ends up having an incredibly weak ending which you’ve all addressed. The “everyone dies but is brought back to life ending” was something I wasn’t accustomed to at 15 but by now I’ve seen it used so much—and pretty much always in an unconvincing and unsatisfying way—that I hate it. Other than a pretty cool cover of Dr. Don Blake hammering his fist onto someone’s corpse, there isn’t really anything great about the ending.

Also, the point is well made that the great art is really just putting a shiny package around a pretty flat plot and weak characterization. It might have looked good, but there is basically no real plot to speak of other than “oh yeah, here is that really big bad guy, let’s all go dogpile on him”. Even now, 18 years later, I’m thinking to myself: “was it really all so simple and straight forward as I remember?” Over in the Legion forum we’ve recently been gushing about the teenage Shooter’s usage of subtext in his early Legion stories, and here, it’s like he’s forgotten how to do that in the passing 10-15 years.

And that gets at the main problem, I think. There isn’t really anything all that great about the Korvac Saga other than the usage of a plethora of characters and some good artwork. Korvac is built up to be such a major threat, but we’re never actually shown any reason to feel that way, and we’re never given any reason to understand him. We’re simply told what to think and feel.

And regarding the inherent creepiness of Shooter’s writing, I can’t really say I remember specifics all too well during this era, but I definitely believe it. It’s become such an ingrained part of experience any Shooter comics outside of his original DC Silver Age run, that for me personally, it becomes something that leaps off the page and is impossible to ignore. The way Michael treats Corina was probably one of those things I passed off at the time as something “bad guys do”, but I can’t say I’d be too thrilled to have to read those scenes again.

Fans went bonkers for this era when the issues were coming off the stands, and many fans still remember this fondly to this day. But I wonder if what they really remember when the think of his era is simply George Perez and then John Byrne, some great fill-in art throughout. All in all, the Korvac Saga is a mediocre story that really doesn’t stand up to other great stories and eras of the Avengers, which has such a rich history.

And some additional thoughts…

I actually think Gyrich is a fantastic character. I don’t like him, but I really love the way he can be utilized within stories to give the protagonists an enemy that can’t be beaten by any normal methods—and more importantly, also has a point of view that needs to be taken into consideration. I admit that as he’s used here, there is a bit of a “beat the reader over the head” mentality, but over time in the 80’s, other writers would use him with a much finer touch. I thought Claremont used him to great effect in his X-Men run, and he’s been used relatively steadily from the 90’s onward.

I do think in the last 15-20 years, other writers have grown his character more organically and shown other sides to him. The PAD story referenced did a good job of that, but I could swear he’s shown up in many other places. Even so, I don’t expect or need him to be as multi-layered as other characters, so long as he doesn’t keep doing the same old thing to the same old people. When someone told Walt Simonson that Hogun the Grim was a one-note character, he replied “yes, but what a great note.” He then explained that as long as Hogun kept winding up in new situations and interacting with new characters, and most importantly used in a very measured fashion, than it should be a positive tool to the storytelling experience. I can’t say Gyrich has been used in such a way all these decades (or Hogun) but when he is used right, he can make a story better.

And I can't agree more with Lardy that "comics have moved too damn far away from narration". That is one of the innate tools the medium allows for--it should be used!

Lastly, I have to chime in that I think the Englehart era may indeed be my favorite as well. It’s hard to say because I truly love the Harras / Epting era, the original 16 issues, the Thomas / Buscema era and the Stern era too. But probably Englehart is my favorite…tied with Harras & Epting.

Cobie, I think you make a good point about how you and other people enjoyed the Korvac Saga as kids mainly because of the amount of characters involved and because of the level of action. The best superhero stories hold up just as well for both kids and grown-ups. Korvac Saga, despite its pretensions to substance, is strictly kiddie fare when all is said and done. Which brings us full circle to what I said before about how Engelhart wrote stories that appealed to kids and adults, to male and female readers, whereas Shooter deliberately aimed his stories at 10-13 year old boys.

Avengers: Nights of Wundagore (collects Avengers 181-187)

(Note: This trade skips over 3 issues since the Korvac trade, making those issues the biggest hole in this project for me. All together, I missed Avengers 136 (featuring a reprint of the Beast becoming furry from Amazing Adventures), 169 (a fill-in in the middle of the Korvac Saga) and 178-180 (also fill-ins, apparently, though 178's Beast-centric Steve Gerber tale looks interesting). So I read in total every Avengers issue, annual and giant-size (plus some aprocrypha) from issues 89-196 minus those five issues.)

So here we have, I believe, the first seven consecutive Avengers issues pencilled by a single artist during the entire run since these reviews began! (Technically Sal Buscema does 8 consecutive from 127-134, but with the story weaving directly into and out of three Giant-Sizes, the narrative flow is incomplete.) I mean, think about it: NO single penciller for seven consecutive stories for almost 100 issues until John Byrne comes along for what is for him a brief run. In fact Byrne's run goes thru 191, bringing his streak to an end at eleven issues, far overshadowing anyone else's consecutive issues since 89.

I'm an unapologetic John Byrne fan. He's easily my favorite artist of the Bronze Age and through whatever Age the '80s comprises. He was the first artist whose style I learned to recognize as a kid, and he drew (and often wrote) some of the most iconic stories I associate with the medium. So, unsurprisingly, it's a pleasure to revisit his run on the Avengers from when his star was still on the rise.

I don't know if this run on the Avengers can be considered among his "classics", but Byrne does a great job portraying all the characters he has to work with. This is despite the fact that he is inked by several different artists before settling on Dan Green thru the end of his run. Overall, his work here is not as memorable as his concurrent classic X-Men run nor as his upcoming iconic take on the FF, but it's great to see Earth's Mightiest Heroes have a great artist issue after issue for the first time since Roy Thomas's heyday. Just IMAGINE how much even greater Englehart's run would have been with any artistic consistency!

It's also of note that this is the first batch of issues in this entire project that I had ever read previously, other than most of the Kree/Skrull war which I'd read as a reprint in the '80s. As a teenager, I bought most of the Avengers run as back issues into the 180s. I can't remember how complete my run is, but I'd definitely read at least half of these issues in this trade at some point, albeit nearly three decades ago. Otherwise, this was all pretty much new to me until now.

So we start off with one of those signature issues where the line-up changes that I've spoken of with some fondness. Only this time, that stinger Gyrich is calling the shots, insisting that the Avengers pare their number down to a manageable seven. With one exception, though, it seems a pretty ho-hum change as the active roster is pretty predictable: Captain America, Iron Man, Beast, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Wasp and _______ (We'll get to the surprise in a minute.) Some recent regulars are left out in the cold, but they're mostly fine with it--with the exception of Hawkeye. Once again, Hawkeye seems to miss the line-up, most likely because of writer indifference toward him. But Clint is not completely gone and maintains a presence for a while, mostly as a sourpuss.

Even during the course of these seven issues, though, the line-up proves more flexible than it appears. The writers find ways to keep Wonder Man and Ms. Marvel around pretty much as regulars in addition to appearances by Clint, Pietro and even Jocasta.

So the controversial seventh member is--the Falcon! Controversial because Gyrich uses Affirmative Action as his reason for basically drafting Sam into it when T'Challa proves unwilling to rejoin. In theory this was a pretty ingenious idea for David Michelinie (or whomever else may have been behind the idea) to use, seeing how the concept was very fresh and topical at the time (and still continues to be to an extent. But in execution, I feel it fails because of a) the poor way Hawkeye is portrayed reacting to it, and b) how ineffectual and inept Sam is portrayed in the job over time.

For Hawkeye, the sour grapes part of it fits his character, as it's been a repeated theme for him. He's simply a sore loser. But I think the way the writers have him focus all of his ire on Sam to such a degree that Clint can almost come off as a bigot. Again, the sour grapes and misfocused anger are totally in-character for him, but I think the writers' choices here are unfortunate in the portrayal.

And, really, having read past this trade and thru Sam's entire tenure, he never really gets a big hero moment, imo. Maybe it's realistic that a rookie Avenger might have a hard time, but it's pretty brutal for him. And then (again getting ahead of myself beyond 187, but I think it's important to mention), he quits as soon as the opportunity presents itself. While I have some problems with Affirmative Action, it's hard not to see Falcon's storyline and treatment during his run as the writers crushing it and making a negative political statement about everything it represents. If that wasn't the intention, you coulda fooled me.

Meanwhile, an old dude we've seen get a scene or two since back early in the Korvac issues has finally made his way to the U.S., and apparently, he's out to be reunited with his kids, the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. "Say WHAT?!?" says fandom at the time, who thought we crossed off that mystery years ago. But the plot thickens, and we've already discussed at length what the longterm consequences of this storyline and the continuity change it entails would have on Pietro and Wanda. As logical and great as this would be, it's hard not to see how the twins would've probably fared better if they'd remained the kids of the Whizzer and Miss America.

So en route to solving this mystery, Wanda and Pietro's souls are trapped in puppets made by the old guy, Django Maximoff. Kind of an odd thing to do to your beloved kids, but it's clear Django is pretty well unhinged.

It occurs to me in this trade and knowing what comes in the next one, that the writers just may have been aiming toward breaking up Wanda and the Vision. His coldness and inhumanity are again re-emphasized. She has a very affectionate scene with Clint, who still clearly carries a torch for her. He complies with Gyrich's order that he stay on monitor duty when the Avengers go to rescue her at Wundagore, this after she took a leave without him to go there in the first place. And there's even more to come in the next trade. Sure looks like things are going that way, though at some point it's clearly rethought.

Between Django and Wundagore is a 2-parter with the Absorbing Man. It's interesting as this is the first fight between Creel and the Avengers at large, foreshadowing his later growing significance as an Avengers foe during secret wars and stern's excellent Masters of evil epic. I like Byrne's depiction of him and overall enjoyed the fight, with the exception of Creel kidnapping a girl and intending to take her to South America with him. This continues some of the recent creepy treatment of women we've mentioned, especially as the girl ends up taking a buit of a shine towards Creel by the end of her ordeal. This casts a pale over what was otherwise an enjoyable romp.

So the trade ends with the 3-part "Yesterday Quest" that revises Pietro and Wanda's origin and shows how it fits into various parts of Marvel's established lore. The trade reprints an essay by Mark Gruenwald from the lettercol of issue 192 in which he explains the process thru which he and Steven Grant unlocked Wanda and Pietro's true history in such a way that explained aspects of it that their previous origin never addressed. It's a pretty convincing and insightful read and makes sense. Again, it's probably the best origin for the twins possible, but my objection is to how later writers (especially Bendis) just used it to destroy them, especially Wanda. So...very good idea, but REALLY bad consequences down the line.

This trade answered my questions (asked earlier in the project when the Whizzer "origin" was unfolded) somewhat as to how the mystery of their parentage unfolded. This story doesn't state who the true father was, but in the same month it concluded, X-Men 125 "answers" the mystery by showing Magneto musing over his dead wife Magda (who is named in the Avengers story). Anyone reading both issues at the time would know the answer, but if only reading one, you wouldn't make the connection. Magneto's scene in X-Men would be a puzzling non-sequitur to X-Men readers, and Avengers readers could only guess. In an age way pre-internet, it was probably still not widely known until it's all outed in the first Vision and Scarlet Witch mini. (Gruenwald's essay, though, includes the father's name with every other letter omitted--and points to X-Men 125 for the answer, though, so there was that.)

The Quest story itself was pretty interesting, though it featured less than I thought I remembered it having. I thought the High Evolutionary and the Knights, etc. all appeared in more than just flashback, but I was mistaken. I probably mixed the story in my head with another one that came later. But it was pretty fascinating how Wanda and Pietro connected with Jessica Drew and various other Marvel apocrypha. the story itself amounted to a vaguely mystical slugfest replete with a possessed Wanda at the finale. Ch'thon and Modred were colorful enemies but not as threatening and special as I'd remembered. But I liked the manner in which the Beast saves the day and the heroic sacrifice of Django Maximoff. And there's even a bit at the end that reminded me of the climax of the recent, great Guardians of the Galaxy film.

So in the end, a fairly worthwhile read, particularly for the excellent artwork by one of the masters and for the definitive (if ultimately unfortunate) origin of the Avengers twins. I definitely had some problems with many of the details used in this run, but as a larger storyline, it worked better than the Korvac Saga.

My memories of this era are the foggiest of all of the Avengers eras, so I'm reluctant to give too much of an opinion other than some general comments:

- I also love Byrne's art and he was nothing short of phenomenal at this stage in the game.

- I loved the Absorbing Man story when I read it, because Creel is such an awesome visual enemy when he's in the hands of a great artist. I'm disappointed to here of the inclusion of the creepy element though,even if I'm not surprised. '

- I think the twist of Magneto being the father of Pietro and Wanda is a great one, even if it led to rougher things for them down the line. That started here and IIRC was clearly Byrne's intent all along.

- I'm a big Bova fan.

- The cover with a thousand Avengers and Gyrich firing most of them was one that I HAD TO READ when I was a kid. So, kudos for that. I hated how it played out yet loved it all at the same time, because like Lardy I love the issues where the line-up changes in a big way. Yet, I also have to agree 100% on how nothing was really surprising here and then how awful it was for the Falcon's character to be given the affirmative action route. It's a part of Avengers history I'd rather forget.

- I did like how Byrne brought the team down to 7 and then basically kept it at 10-12 unofficially for the rest of his run. That's a nice solid number, and one that Kurt Busiek obviously attempted to do on his Avengers run too.

- I remember thinking both Quicksilver and Moondragon were at their all time most unlikable during these issues.

I also have to recommend Lardy someday check out the Gerber Beast story if he gets the chance because its one I always liked, filler or not. That ties in to the fact that Byrne's run was the Beast's last great hurrah with the Avengers, really. He stuck around for a few more issues before getting a pretty oddball push offscreen; eventually he went to the New Defenders, and then X-Factor and the rest is history. But Byrne caps off a great era where the Beast was perhaps *the* quintessential Avenger.

Also, I'm pretty sure that for a few months Byrne was drawing FF, the Avengers and the X-Men. Talk about effing TALENT! And WORK ETHIC. Team books ain't easy from what I understand, and it takes some real talent to do not one, not two but three.