As this art from the upcoming AVENGERS: THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE shows, Allan Heinberg & Jim Cheung's YOUNG AVENGERS comics continue to be the best-looking comics to ever comic a comic. Just look at these preview pages at Comic Book Resources and tell me Cheung doesn't just make sweet pencil-love to everything you love about Marvel Comics. One of Marvel's best-kept secrets is returning this summer in a new mini-series featuring the long-awaited return of the Scarlet Witch (for better or worse). If you've not read Heinberg & Cheung's YOUNG AVENGERS, I highly implore you to seek out one of the very handy trade paperbacks or hardcover collections of the series. It's gorgeous, fun, surprising and, at parts, touching. Most of all, it just oozes with love for Marvel Comics past, present and future and is a sparkling addition to that universe. With THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE dropping July 8th, now is the time to get caught up on (and thereby fall in love with) all things YOUNG AVENGERS.
(now where's my comission, Heinberg?)
I think that cover art alone makes me want to try that book out. Good thing I've read a lot of Young Avengers before this...
ReplyDeleteThank you so much TM
ReplyDeleteI am going to get ordered for me and my son :D
Not read any young avengers before but
it should be a great meeting point for me and my son.
Plus we have started our own Avengers group, lol :D
The main reason not to read YOUNG AVENGERS or CHILDREN'S CRUSADE is that Wiccan and Speed aren't Wanda's children.
ReplyDeletePractically every time the subject comes up in a forum, a poster asks, "Uh, how are. . ." in spite of Heinberg's attempt at an explanation in YA #11. Basing his versions of the children on events in AWC #52 guaranteed that his explanation wouldn't make sense, because Byrne's retcon didn't make sense either. The retcon had several flaws, the fatal one being the claim that Wanda used her power to conceive the children, when she didn't. That mistake alone caused the retcon to fall apart, and Heinberg's retcon of the retcon, involving manipulation of lost souls, etc., fixed nothing. At most, it made Wiccan and Speed reincarnations. A logical writer would focus on who they originally were.
The problems with the kids could have been avoided if Brevoort had done his job and told Heinberg not to base his material on a flawed retcon, but instead had Heinberg go back to the origin of the children in Englehart's maxiseries. The children could have been aged magically to make them usable.
One of Brevoort's many bad policies re writing is to take the position that practically whatever appears in print works, unless a writer chooses to ignore it. The notion of "editorial control" only works when an editor actually controls the creative process. Stories that don't work mechanically aren't published. Stories that work are published. Brevoort now is merely an apologist who tries to deflect criticism whenever readers have to deal with bad writing. He points to sales and argues that continuity shouldn't interfere with a good story. The possibility that he just isn't doing his job is never considered.
SRS
Maukingbird... I defer to you. This one is out of my boundary. Valid points?
ReplyDeleteI don't think the continuity issues effect the overall enjoyment of the series or the characters. At least, not in my opinion. And I would assume a lot of the goal of The Children's Crusade is to once-and-for all clarify the supposed connection between the kids and Wanda.
ReplyDeleteIf they were to say that Wiccan and Speed were not Wanda's kids, that would be a pleasant surprise. The presumption is that the storyline will say that they are.
ReplyDeleteThe overarching problem is the Bendis-Heinberg version of Wanda. The power Bendis came up with could have been given to anyone Bendis wanted to write as insane. Choosing Wanda and connecting her power to the kids reversed the themes of the maxiseries and turned the character concept (Wanda) inside out. Those issues aren't just abstractions; they're why writers create characters to use in stories. For all of Heinberg's well-meaning talk about the character, he's talking about someone who's never existed, outside of a couple of failed storylines.
SRS