Legion World Forums LEGION CLUBHOUSE The Legion of Super-Heroes Re-Reading the Legion: Archives Volume 11

Let's face it--you forgot that Jan pulled the trigger. But you did remember what he learned from the story!

Exactly.

You're both right that Jan learned a powerful lesson after he pulled the trigger (and, more importantly, so did the reader). However, in my view, Jan still failed his ultimate test.

He gave in to his base desire for revenge. In that instant, he became no different from any villain who does the same thing. The true test of Jan's character was holding fast to the Legion's ideals--the ideals he embraced--in the face of enormous temptation. To use a simplistic analogy, it's easy to learn that one should not steal a piece of candy after being caught. It's far greater test of character to choose not to steal in the first place.

It's interesting to compare Jan's situation with Thom's. Thom's life was threatened, so he had a legitimate reason to kill Nuhor (even though an alternative existed). Jan had no such reason to kill Roxxas, as the latter was kneeling before him and unarmed. The reason Jan gives--as the last surviving Trommite, he had a right to execute Roxxas--is shallow justification. It would not hold up if the relative of a murder victim executed the killer, and it should not hold up for Jan.

The major difference, though, is that Roxxas lived while Nuhor did not. But Roxxas did not live through any action of Jan's.

Jan's justification under Trommite law is also wishy washy in my opinion. He's invoking the justice system of a civilization that effectively no longer exists. Under what court of law, would invoking that rule work? I would guess that the Science Police would brand him as nothing better than a religious terrorist under that kind of thinking.

I don't know. I tend to sympathize with him. I mean, Roxxas killed his entire race! That's something extraordinarily heavy for him to deal with. Should a Jew who lost his family and whole village at Auschwitz not want to kill Hitler if he had the chance? Wouldn't he have the right?

Oh, it's definitely against Legion Code, and Jan notably resigns just before he commits the act. The Legion would definitely oust him if the act stood, but I'm not so sure he'd be convicted of criminal charges under the circumstances. Or if he was, the charges or the sentence would be well below their fullest extent.

I sympathize with Jan, too, just as I would with the relative of a murder victim or anyone who has endured horrific tragedy. But sympathy does not equate with condoning his actions.



It would be totally understandable if he or she wanted to kill Hitler.



I would argue no.

I completely sympathize with Jan too! It's some pretty heavy stuff to deal with when you have the opportunity to avenge the deaths of millions by taking one murderer's life. Unfortunately, Jan's justification wouldn't be justified under a court of law. Capital punishment is always an interesting debate to see in superhero comics and I usually air on the side of mercy, but there are good arguments on both sides. In hindsight, I wish that Shooter could have spent the next issue or two to really explore the ramifications of how Jan's actions impacted him going forward. It could have made for great material!

I should note that I'm pretty liberal politically, so I'm not some right-wing NRA booster! But I'd be hard-pressed to tell Jan he shouldn't kill Roxxas.

Great to see your posts Lardy, Fickles & BraJa!



I definitely enjoyed seeing the use of legion history to strengthen a story, to build themes and to plant seeds for stories to come. It's not continuity for the sake of it. It's there for definite story purposes.



I agree as we'd seen it happen to Thom and would see it happen to Brainy later on. If you're colleague had just tried to murder someone, and you were in law enforcement, it would be very odd for there not to be repercussions.

Perhaps this is a different form of continuity. While it draws on the Legion's past, it's still very much a complete story, in the traditional way. Compare it with the Levitz years where subplots would carry over multiple issues. Although, I'm reminded that poor Salu seemed to be pretty much ignored having just come out of the sens-tank. But, there's a lack of a character arc where, Jan would react to the changes this encounter would have on his life. Next month would be another complete Legion Adventure! Just a thought.

This discussion actually reminds me of LoSH #297, where Cosmic Boy is put in pretty much the same position, though on a smaller scale. The Legionnaires don't even reprimand him from nearly killing the criminals who killed his parents, just like after Jan nearly killed Roxxas. I wonder if all these near murders make the next weekly meeting awkward.

Yeah, even with all of the excellent continuity displayed here, the Legion was caught in an era of done-in-ones at this point in time. A court martial would have involved a Part Two, which is something we haven't seen (I think, or was there one under Cockrum?) since Shooter's time on the Adventure era. Since we know that Shooter himself wasn't opposed to continued stories, we have to assume they were mandated by Boltinoff, who may also have mandated that very few stories were allowed to even be book-length. So any thoughts of ramifications being explored were unlikely or impossible.

You could use these two examples--and Kenz Nuhor and the Infinite Man on the other extreme--that the Legion really only cared about actual murder and not murderous intent.

In one of the alternate timelines in LSH 300, an adult Legion votes to suspend the code against killing while earth is being overrun by Khunds. Superman resigns in protest.

One might see this scene as a logical outgrowth of these stories. The Legion makes an exception here and an exception there, and, before long, they start to question the moral foundation of their code or to deem the code no longer relevant. They use situational ethics to justify their actions.

On Shooter, I can only imagine it's a combination of the relationships he'd seen and his own development.

There's a definite lack of maturity in that side of his writing. I'd make allowances for his age here, but as has been pointed out, it sort of stayed like that. Perhaps it's also a reflection on just what he thinks works in a comic book or how he was told such things work in a comic.

Yup, Weisinger was a real piece of work. It's a personality I've seen to varying degrees pretty much everywhere I've been, so it's certainly not confined to the comics industry. It's just that normally you don't get to read about it.

I've read articles from both sides of Shooter's time at Marvel. Form what I've read (and this caveat should be applied to everything in this post) I broadly agreed with Shooter on a number of points. The firmer hand from his time with Weisinger seemed to be badly needed. But with a lot of positions, they come with a shelf life, and that approach is only viable for a certain period of time. Which probably resulted in it being counter productive the longer it went on.

We interrupt this post for Comic Book Confessions!

When I first read it, I quite liked the first issue of Secret Wars II

There were characters I was unfamiliar with, and the Earth bound setting seemed to suit the Marvel world. I hadn't read too many Cosmic Being trying to find their Humanity stories at that point, so there was some novelty. I don't think I read too much more of the story, but I remember being interested.

I thought the Secret Wars II tie ins were a lot better than the main story!

Yeah, and you're on very unsteady ground if that's your policy. Good point.

But, this is only murder we're talking about. It's not as though Jan was getting married. He would definitely have had to resign in those days if he did anything so heinous as that Which is probably connected to the maturity in writing we've just been talking about.

Well, I bought Secret wars I as a 15 year-old and thought it was super-cool! I haven't re-read it in a long, LONG time, so I can't attest to its quality over the long haul. I'm not overly optimistic about it, though.

Secret Wars II seemed even then kind of...mean?...especially in how it ended, even back then. Ultimately, it's about a godlike being trying to learn what it means to be human. And then he gets murdered just as he's about to take the last step.

I could have back peddled on my post so fast I would have broke the time barrier "I was young!" "I didn't read much Marvel!"

Thinking of Civil War, I could have went with "I only read the start!" as that one nose dived off a cliff.

But there you go. Incidentally, I read Secret Wars too. All of it. I'm not sure why that was. It was in a different format, and the first few issues would have had some sort of free gift. Once those got you, the newsagent would keep it back for you. Once that happened you had to face the newsagent's expression of soul crushing depression if you said you wanted to cancel something.

Oddly enough, there's a magazine that I've picked up a couple of issues of recently. My dad picked up the last one, as I couldn't see it when I went in. The newsagent had kept it back for him, and the question of doing it constantly is only a month or two away. Some things never change. I only wanted to read a couple of articles!

On Jan:

Form TMK #12 as Jan, Salu and Ayla stand over the seriously injured Roxxas...

Ayla: You know, if we don't do something, he's gong to die, right there.
Salu: After what he did to Blok and Jo-- I really don't think I give a damn...
Ayla: It is better than he deserves.
Jan: No. This isn't about him, or his atrocities. Or even Justice. It's about us-- and how much of us would die in this room with him.

Now, was that already plotted out by Giffen with only the Blok reference added. It's certainly the end of the first arc, conflict-wise. So, it may have been plotted out.

Reading those lines, it's easy to connect it with his experience of having wanted vengeance previously, and having learned a valuable lesson from it.

Or...

It wasn't plotted. It's something he finds a little easier to pull from his contemplative butt, but isn't based at all in him having been tested with Erin's death.

I was just thinking of all the mind "conditioning" we see in the Legion Universe. It was still mentioned as late as the TMK run. So, presumably even monsters had a chance of rehabilitation. With such a framework in place across the UP, perhaps there's a cultural difference in Jan exacting revenge.

It does leave plenty of discussion about whether UP credits should be used to rehabilitate monsters...



Yeah, I'd hate to be having to lead on that one....ah, rats...

Please pop in when you can Fickles!



Considering the fate of many female comic characters is a fridge or equivalent, I'm wondering how many positive women characters are needed before it's not "telling" when a villain is a woman? Likewise for race or sexual orientation...

I read quite a bit of Unity at the time. The female antagonist had been abused sexually and then, sadly, passed that abuse on to her son. I felt sorry for them both. It was a realistic treatment of what happens when the cycle of abuse is perpetuated.

It's always dicey when a writer makes a woman or a member of some other disenfranchised population a villain. Accusations of stereotypes abound. Yet, if there are no villains who are women or gay or black, etc., it sends a different but equally unrealistic message.

I was thinking about this while reviewing the Shrinking Violet story for # 214. I was ready to dismiss it as another "weak female Legionnaire" tale. But, as I pointed out in that thread, it makes logical sense that Violet would become afraid to use her power after suffering a traumatic episode.

One always has to look beyond stereotypes and evaluate a story or a character in a broader context. Given what Jo experienced in 213, Violet's fear doesn't seem so sexist. Likewise, Unity should not be judged by Shooter's supposed misogynism or immaturity in earlier stories.

I've never read Unity or much of Valiant, so I can't speak towards that. However, I'm curious as to whether your evaluation of the Night Girl story would hue towards it coming off as misogynistic or not. I say this because you qualify this tendency of his as "supposed". Of course, you could mean that all of this conjecture is "supposed" because it's what people take from some of his stories since he's (presumably) never gone on record as being a misogynist.

As for me, I'm not so sure if it's a tendency that he intends or is even fully cognizant of. But I think it almost has to speak to something in his subconscious make-up.

Lardy,
I don't know Shooter personally, and I'm not qualified to say whether or not he is a misogynist. So, yes, unless he comes out and says he is (and who would?), I'm not comfortable labeling him or anyone else with such a disparaging term.

As I just pointed out in the Archives 12 re-read thread, Shooter's portrayal of men and women in these stories was not much different from what was seen in popular movies at the time. There's a scene in "High Plains Drifter" when Clint Eastwood rides into town and is accosted by a woman (a prostitute, if I remember right). She attempts to seduce him, but when he stoically resists, she insults him and starts to leave. Only then does he grab her, take her somewhere, and (we are led to believe) rape her.

These types of portrayals were quite common in films at the time. Men were men, and they didn't take bullshit from anyone, not even women. I can't help wondering if Shooter attempted to make his male Legionnaires adhere to this exaggerated portrayal of masculinity.

As for women, they were supposed to be devoted to their men, no matter what. A very popular song of that time was "Stand By Your Man," which extolled this philosophy. Perhaps Shooter simply intended to show how devoted Lydda was, and, through her devotion, make Rokk realize he was lucky to have her.

Today, such attitudes seem bizarre to us--and that's good because we have a much better understanding (I hope) of the complexities of men and women and how they relate to each other. I'm willing to concede that some of Shooter's depictions appear misogynistic to us today, though they may have been intended merely to depict cultural assumptions of the time.

It's easy for readers to try to psychoanalyze writers or ascribe to them behaviors evident in their characters, but this is a form of projection that doesn't really serve any purpose.

All fair points. However, I've read a lot of Silver and Bronze Age stuff over the last couple of years. And it's fair to say that female characters are often portrayed as weaker or even subservient to their male counterparts. I was especially disgusted to read how Sue Storm/Richards was marginalized compared to Reed and the other two when I read the Masterworks with the original Inhumans and Galactus stories. With her and numerous other examples, its fair to say there was a good amount of sexism evident in how the male writers wrote the female characters.

Shooter, though, seems to go a few steps further, writing scenes like Rokk slapping Ayla and the extra creepiness in the Lydda story. These and some of the things he did years later on the Avengers strip seem to cross the line from sexist into misogynist. Neither is a great attitude to have, but the latter is even worse than the former. I don't know that Shooter is a misogynist, but I feel pretty confident in saying that a number of the things he's written can give that impression.

I mean, in this example alone, if Boltinoff really intended for this to be a kid's book, then how could he let at the very least a scene like the slap make it into the final product? This story appeared in the '70s, so it's not as if there hadn't been some social progress in favor of women by then.

Anyhow, none of this is meant as a tirade against you, Huey. I just hate to see this kind of tendency in any semi-intelligent entertainment. I'm not overly politically correct, by any means, but I hate to see this sort of thing rear its ugly head.

Oh, I'm not taking it personally, Lardy. In fact, I appreciate the dialogue. Thank you for your initial question.

You're right that women were marginalized in comics for years. The Scarlet Witch nearly fainted every time she used her hex power. Wonder Woman was regarded as the secretary of the JLA for no apparent reason other than being the only woman on the team.

By the mid '70s (the era we're reviewing), things had started to change. Wanda had become a powerhouse character after her tutelage with Agatha Harkness, and Valkyrie was introduced as a badass swashbuckler. The Black Canary was a powerful replacement for Wonder Woman in JLA.

Even in the Legion, women were often portrayed as active and successful members of the team: Nura (201), Jeckie (204), and Vi (214) each took a turn in saving a male teammate. Even Lu returned (209) to save Jeckie. It is telling, perhaps, that the last story was the only one written by Shooter. Otherwise, female Legionnaires seem to be in the background or victims in his stories (e.g., Phantom Girl's stabbing in 210 and Jeckie's illness in 209).

So the evidence for Shooter's mistreatment of female characters is there, if one cares to look for it. But I think this evidence has to be viewed in the larger context, as I suggested above.

As to why Boltinoff allowed the slap to be published--perhaps neither he nor Shooter thought anyone would make a big deal of it. We can say in these more progressive times that it comes across as demeaning and violent towards women, but I don't think that's how it was perceived then. Women's lib was all the rage at the time: the idea that women should be treated the same as men. So, if the male Legionnaires shoved each other around (as Garth did to Jan back in 207) when they were upset, why should women be exempt? That may have been their thinking, and, as a 12-year-old in 1975, that's how I took it.

Granted, there are differences between pushing and slapping. The latter is usually seen as a demeaning form of violence--a way for a man to assert his superiority over a woman. I didn't know that at the time, and I can't say what Shooter or Boltinoff might have thought.