tiny-tyrant:

peppermonster:

mctiddy:

peppermonster:

mctiddy:

peppermonster:

mctiddy:

peppermonster:

brevoortformspring:

Magneto is a monster. He’s not a monster because he’s Jewish, or because he’s an Auschwitz survivor. He’s a monster because of the actions he’s undertaken, the people he’s killed, the lives he’s destroyed. None of that has anything to do with one racist guy somewhere in the world.

I think using the term “monster” is lazy writing. It’s dismissive and takes a three dimensional character and degrades them to a one dimensional trope. He becomes a cliche. It’s like taking everything he has done and just saying “he’s crazy” that just belittles everything he has been through, and attributes his actions not to his experiences or even defect of character, but just a scapegoat trope. Magneto isn’t a monster, but he has done monstrous thing. One would think a creative force for Marvel would know this. But I guess not.

I wouldn’t call this lazy writing. The use of the word “monster” is interpretive. Other heroes in marvel have been called monsters, like Wolverine, Punisher, and Ghost Rider (who is quite monstrous) I think are good examples. Just because he’s being labeled as a monster here doesn’t mean he hasn’t earned other more positive labels by now, it’s just a way for us to be reminded that this was a major marvel villain (on par with Dr Doom and the Red Skull)

Monster is lazy writing. It does not adequately describe his character as IS dismissive and IS offensive. He doesn’t need to be a martyr or a monster. He isn’t one extreme or anther, and to chalk him up as a “monster” with no context is BAD WRITING. call him a “monster” with context and effort, or say he is a man who has done “monstrous things” and leave it at that. It’s either or. You can’t just throw “monster” or “crazy” out there unqualified and say you are leaving it up to “creative interpretation” than wonder why everyone interprets that as offensive and lazy.

How is it offensive? Who is being offended? The fictional character?

I’m sorry Magneto, you’re an alright guy.

Offensive to his accumulative writers and creative teams who have penned him for decades, and his fans who have come to appreciate the nuance and complexity of his character. Monster is an aggressive term, meant more as an attack on him than an analysis of his character. It’s dismissive, it belittles his good qualities, and puts him on the end of extreme. He is neither a martyr nor a monster, and to group him at either extreme does his character a great disservice.
It’s a matter of language, because no one is denying he hasn’t done terrible things. When I call it LAZY WRITING I mean exactly that. No one in even a high school level creative writing class could get away with writing “he was a monster” as a descriptor and get away with it. The professor would immediately press “but WHY is he a monster? What makes him a monster? A monster to whom?” It’s cheap and lazy and imprecise. If Tom were simply to say “he has done monstrous things” it would be a complete sentence he could leave. The have “monster” thrown in with no qualifiers is lazy. It’s like throwing the word “crazy” around with nothing to quantify with. It’s cheap, it’s offensive, it’s lazy. Tom should know better.

It’s not offensive when a creative does something with a character you don’t like, or if a creative is being lazy. It’s disappointing, but it’s not offensive.

Was I disappointed when they replaced wolverine with sabretooth in uncanny avengers, using the alignment changes in axis to “fill” the gap? Yes I was and still am, but I’m not offended (nor should I be).

How would the original creators look at their characters today? Would Steve Ditko like how Dan Slot writes Spider-Man? How would Jack Kirby feel about Brian Michael Bendis’s all new x-men? Would Bob Kane even recognize the batman of today? Jack K and Stan Lee originally wrote Magneto to be a (monster) villain, and for the sake of continuity is it THAT important that we restate all the bad things done by an anti-hero?

The comic book code only allowed for zany over the top bad guys. Under no circumstances were villains allowed to be depicted as sympathetic, positions of authority (like government and cops) had to be respected and depicted positively, and villains could not be allowed to win or be desirable/favorable. So until the code was removed, villains were one dimensional messes and no golden or silver age villain can be compared to their contemporary by that basis alone. But I don’t understand you reasoning for bringing that up, especially since it’s so easily dismissed.

Yes, it IS offensive, because once Magneto was no longer under comic code and his back story was written he was made a Jewish holocaust survivor. mutants have ALWAYS been a metaphor for oppressed minorities and Erik became one from a real group, and his hardships and PTSD are relatable actual things. To call him a “monster” is offensive to the people who relate or sympathize with him. Not defend him, understand him. Share a perspective. Experienced things he lived through. To call him a monster is degrading.

There exists such a thing as a sympathetic villain, whatever the reason, that’s a thing. Their origins are tragic and it makes them more human because our real life villains are also humans. Them being sympathetic does not make their actions inherently correct but it makes them relatable. I wouldn’t exactly call Magneto a monster, I think that’s oversimplifying his history and character for sure. 

Magneto’s backstory is one that hit close to home for me because i lost more than half of my own family in the concentration camps across Europe during WWII. My family is Jewish and despite how long ago that time might seem, it hurts that so much of our history and people were wiped out. You know, Jewish solidarity exists because who else will stand up for Jews than Jews? These days the world seems silent, just as it was back then.

It’s a parallel drawn. X-men is about different sides of an issue relating to differences among people that become socially and politically constructed problems, it shows extremes and it shows different reasons for why people end up the way they do — Villains, heroes and neutrals alike. 

Some say “never again” and they are civil in how they prevent history from repeating itself, some say “never again” and are violent, some say “never again” but have no voice or means to do something and some do nothing because they don’t give a damn. 

He IS a simpathetic villain, not a monster. 

Beautifully said.