REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007

On Nov 14, 6:11�pm, badbad <u....RemoveThis@example.net> wrote:
> That is an essential problem with taking history and adding "new" events
> in the past. �This type of writing cannot happen in a vacuum - all of
> Xaviers actions now have to come into scrutiny and the reassessment is
> that Xavier is a villain. Not a mustache-twirling black cape villain but
> a villain nonetheless.
>
> badbad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--I disagree. All of Xavier's actions now have to come into scrutiny
and the reassessment is that Xavier is a man who is many shades of
grey. For the most part Charles Xavier is a heroic character. He
founded the X-Men on the simple notion of equality. He's fought
against evil mutants. He's fought to ensure a brighter future for
both mutants and humans. Yet at the same time, he's done things that
aren't terribly heroic. He's erased memories. He's manipulated
people. He's done some things that others would see as villainous.
The key difference to me is that all of Charles' actions stem from an
awareness of right and wrong, and he strives to do what's right. He
may not always succeed, but there's no denying that his heart is in
the right place. Contrast that with more traditional villains, who
seek to do things that are clearly wrong. They may rationalize their
actions, but when one constantly believes that the end justifies the
means and that what they're doing isn't wrong (and by extension, they
feel no guilt...Charles clearly does), that's the road that leads to
villainy. Yes Charles was wrong to treat Danger as a non sentient
program to be manipulated as he saw fit in training the X-Men. Yes, he
was wrong in altering Scott's memories. But his manipulations and
deceit weren't borne from a desire to control the world around him and
shape it to his desires. He was genuinely acting in what he thought
was the best interests of those around him.
I think most of us have done things we're not proud of. I think many
of us have acted in a way that's completely self serving, yet we
rationalized our actions as being good or for the benefit of others.
I don't see Charles' actions as being any different.
Simply put, I feel that Brubaker has allowed chinks to appear in
Charles' saintly armor and the end result is a Professor X that is
more rounded...and more human.

Tony
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

On Nov 15, 12:24�am, grinningdemon <grinningde....DeleteThis@austin.rr.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:11:52 -0800, badbad <u....DeleteThis@example.net> wrote:
> >Dan McEwen wrote:
> >> badbad <u....DeleteThis@example.net> wrote in
> >>news:qUm_i.68367$YL5.27989@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
> >>> Xavier is willing to re-write memories (ala Zatanna) but specifically
> >>> of his friends (even "WORSE" than Zatanna). �This is a very bad
> >>> precedent for Brubaker to make. �Why doesn't Xavier do this on anyone
> >>> who is a threat to the X-Men?
>
> >> Xavier rewrote memories in the era of the original X-Men. �This is
> >> nothing new. �He changed at some point because we know he wasn't doing
> >> that anymore by the time he met Kitty Pryde. �Jean used her telepathy to
> >> placate the Pryde's when Emma and Xavier were both courting Kitty for
> >> their schools. �I seem to remember Xavier being surprised and
> >> disapproving.
>
> >> �The writer cannot unmake this situation
> >>> and whenever the X-Men or mutants in general are threatened, Xavier
> >>> "should" always use this option. �There is no moral or ethical
> >>> component to contradict Xavier' choice because he is clearly working
> >>> without a sense of ethics.
>
> >>> Are we now willing to accept that he has now seen the light and won't
> >>> do it again? �I would piss on the writer who makes such a cowardly
> >>> proposition.
>
> >> I would say, as a general rule, that he doesn't plan to use that option..
>
> >I don't recall Xavier rewriting the memory of an innocent. �This will
> >enter the semantic realm but I do believe the devil is in the details.
> >I do believe you may be correct that Xavier won't use that option again.
> > �But it is now an option unemcumbered by the past history because
> >according to Brubaker, he did it before.
>
> >In prior issues, Xavier may have placated some, like people who saw the
> >X-Men without their masks. �He may have edited memories to make it seem
> >that he is in one place when he is at another or to make him look
> >different. �I cede this point. �But let us follow that train of thought.
>
> >To whit, Xavier is now on record as editing the thoughts of people in
> >order to cover up his questionable actions. �Based on Brubaker's
> >writing, the death of the first X-Men was so damaging to Scott that he
> >had to erase the knowledge of a brother he has known his entire life.
>
> >Xavier feels so assured in his actions that he edits Moira MacTaggert's
> >memory removing her choice in the matter. And others who could voice an
> >opinion too. That seems like the act of a person who is innnocent
> >doesn't it?
>
> >Not.
>
> >I believe the editing of Scott's memories is non-consensual and immoral.
> > �Some people would argue otherwise. �But no one can argue that the
> >coverup is criminal.
>
> >When the Zatanna mind wipe storyline meandered thru the DC Universe I
> >actually couldn't understand the problem. I actually agreed with Zatanna
> >erasing the mind of Dr. Light. �I didn't find it to be an ethical issue
> >which would shatter the "trust" between villains and heroes.
> >Rhetorically speaking, do you think Poison Ivy or Luthor would care what
> >happened to a rapist like Dr. Light? �I didn't buy into the premise or
> >the reactions of characters faced with the issue.
>
> >There is a difference between Dr. Light and Scott Summers. �Dr. Light
> >would have used the information to harm people. �Scott Summers would
> >have had a nervous breakdown or left the X-Men. �Xavier has manipulated
> >people for a self serving purpose (Really Brubaker has written Xavier as
> >doing it) and painted him into a corner.
>
> >What "lesson" is the current Xavier learning that would prevent him from
> >doing it again. �A stern look from Cyclops? �Especially after he is on
> >record on doing it to a former lover like Moira the option is now on the
> >table.
>
> >That is an essential problem with taking history and adding "new" events
> >in the past. �This type of writing cannot happen in a vacuum - all of
> >Xaviers actions now have to come into scrutiny and the reassessment is
> >that Xavier is a villain. Not a mustache-twirling black cape villain but
> >a villain nonetheless.
>
> >badbad.
>
> I agree with you entirely...unfortunately, the retcon card is pretty
> much all that's left to play with Xavier...he's not really very
> interesting unless they tear him down...personally, I think they need
> to redem him (as much as possible anyway) and then kill him off (like
> they should have done years ago) before any more deep dark secrets pop
> up...he got the ball running but it's time for the X-Men to stand on
> their own...once and for all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--oddly enough, I agree.
I think Charles should have been killed many years ago. From a
storytelling perspective, I think having him dead serves the X-Men
books much more than having him around. He becomes a martyr in death.
Morever, even if these dark secrets arise after his death, most of the
X-Men would still see him as a visionary and a legend.

Tony
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

On Nov 15, 6:18�am, badbad <u... RemoveThis @example.net> wrote:
> TonyJ1... RemoveThis @aol.com wrote:
>
> > --I disagree. �All of Xavier's actions now have to come into scrutiny
> > and the reassessment is that Xavier is a man who is many shades of
> > grey. �For the most part Charles Xavier is a heroic character. He
> > founded the X-Men on the simple notion of equality. �He's fought
> > against evil mutants. �He's fought to ensure a brighter future for
> > both mutants and humans. Yet at the same time, he's done things that
> > aren't terribly heroic. �He's erased memories. �He's manipulated
> > people. �He's done some things that others would see as villainous.
> > The key difference to me is that all of Charles' actions stem from an
> > awareness of right and wrong, and he strives to do what's right. �He
> > may not always succeed, but there's no denying that his heart is in
> > the right place. Contrast that with more traditional villains, who
> > seek to do things that are clearly wrong. �They may rationalize their
> > actions, but when one constantly believes that the end justifies the
> > means and that what they're doing isn't wrong (and by extension, they
> > feel no guilt...Charles clearly does), that's the road that leads to
> > villainy. �Yes Charles was wrong to treat Danger as a non sentient
> > program to be manipulated as he saw fit in training the X-Men. Yes, he
> > was wrong in altering Scott's memories. �But his manipulations and
> > deceit weren't borne from a desire to control the world around him and
> > shape it to his desires. �He was genuinely acting in what he thought
> > was the best interests of those around him.
> > I think most of us have done things we're not proud of. I think many
> > of us have acted in a way that's completely self serving, yet we
> > rationalized our actions as being good or for the benefit of others.
> > I don't see Charles' actions as being any different.
> > Simply put, I feel that Brubaker has allowed chinks to appear in
> > Charles' saintly armor and the end result is a Professor X that is
> > more rounded...and more human.
>
> > Tony
>
> You know, if you replace the words Charles Xavier with Dr. Doom or
> Magneto you would basically get the same meaning. Sentences like, "the
> ends justify the means, and all that "for your own good" come to mind
> when I read this story.
>
> I believe you are describing an anti-hero at best. Not a hero.

--oh, I know I am. However, I think Charles more successfully walks
that fine line between hero and anti-hero. He's not an out and out
villain. He's slipped to be sure, and possibly will again. But at
least he's *trying* to redeem himself. Most of the time he's heroic;
sometimes he slips.

>
> Please understand that I really am not trying to change anyone else's
> mind but let us revisit the storyline again:
>
> The first X-Men team meets a horrible end. Cyclops is in anguish. Xavier
> removes the memory of the first X-Men from everyone who knew about them.
> � Angry brother of Cyclops comes back and reveals the truth.
>
> In an ethical construct there are two quantities to the actions of
> Charles Xavier:
>
> Scott Summers is in mental anguish which could permanantly debilitate
> him. �The first choice is, do I, Charles Xavier ease his pain by erasing
> his memories? This could be described as an ethical quandary and could
> be morally neutral. Just like a resistant patient he could be excused
> for relieving Scott's pain for the sake of his health.
>
> The second action is the villanous action. �Xavier removes the memory of
> Scott's brother and the first X-men from everyone who knew them. �Simply
> to cover it up.
>
> I would posit that my my problem begins where Xavier takes it upon
> himself to remove choice from everyone around him. �Rhetorically
> speaking, he knows better and is willing to do anything to accomplish
> his goals. �Where Charles Xavier steers into the dark side is that he
> edits OTHER peoples memories to cover up his activity. �That is an
> ethical crime because there was no reason to do it except to hide the
> fact that he edited Scott Summers memories.
>
> That is the problem that Brubaker has presented for future writers and
> future storylines. �When Xavier is on record as editing the feelings of
> those closest to him for selfish reasons, how can people truly trust him?

--I see it differently. I don't see Charles' actions stemming from
selfishness. I think he was genuinely erasing Scott's memories to ease
his pain. He felt he had to do so to everyone else to maintain the
lie. He clearly regrets doing so. And while it was definitely an
invasion of Scott's privacy and he crossed a line, I don't think the X-
Men are going to so quickly disregard everything else the man has done
for them and the world. Charles isn't perfect (in fact, he's an
outright ass sometimes). He F****D up. Yep. But he's also done quite
a bit of good in the world and that shouldn't be lost when deciding
whether or not he's heroic, anti-heroic, or villainous.

> Don't you think that the X-men would question why they even are
> together? Perhaps Xavier edited their feelings to make them feel a sense
> of togetherness. Wouldn't Wolverine, a loner ask, "hey, why am I hanging
> around these losers when I could be banging chicks and drinking beer."
> Or Emma Frost asking, "Why did I become interested in teaching
> X-students when I could be shopping? �Or Rogue asking, "Why did I stay
> with the X-men after they helped me with my powers?"
>
> These storylines now are now possibilities.
>
> It is a dark and unfriendly X-Mansion when you have a Xavier without ethics.

--he's not completely without ethics. Between this and the situation
with the Danger Room, we've seen 2 _major_ incidents involving a
breach of ethics on Charles' part. Of course we've also seen him, in
the past, willing to wipe peoples' minds or control them, depending on
the situation. Charles has *always* employed questionable tactics.
He's always rationalized his actions (just as villains do) as being
for the greater good. Many times he's right. Sometimes he's
wrong.
And you're making a blanket assumption that just b/c Charles did this
in the past he's going to do it again. It's a logical possibility and
certainly something the X-Men should confront him with
but it's not definite and I think the X-Men would have to balance
everything he's done for them vs this violation of trust. I'm not
saying he should get off scot free. In fact, I do agree that the X-Men
should hold him accountable.

Tony
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

mimf <mimf.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.11.14.23.33.09.713780@nospam.com:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:19:54 +0000, Dan McEwen wrote:

>>> And NOW, is the time for Xavier to kick all of those free-loading
>>> brats out of HIS HOUSE, once and for all. He's damned near spent a
>>> million dollars on each of them since they've been there. Do they
>>> work? Not a one. Enough is enough!
>>
>> It's not his house anymore.
>
> When did it stop being his house? He may have faked his death a couple
> of times (at least once anyway), but didn't he get all his money and
> property back after his return?

He turned it over when he left for Genosha.
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

TonyJ1675.TakeThisOut@aol.com wrote:

>
> --I disagree. All of Xavier's actions now have to come into scrutiny
> and the reassessment is that Xavier is a man who is many shades of
> grey. For the most part Charles Xavier is a heroic character. He
> founded the X-Men on the simple notion of equality. He's fought
> against evil mutants. He's fought to ensure a brighter future for
> both mutants and humans. Yet at the same time, he's done things that
> aren't terribly heroic. He's erased memories. He's manipulated
> people. He's done some things that others would see as villainous.
> The key difference to me is that all of Charles' actions stem from an
> awareness of right and wrong, and he strives to do what's right. He
> may not always succeed, but there's no denying that his heart is in
> the right place. Contrast that with more traditional villains, who
> seek to do things that are clearly wrong. They may rationalize their
> actions, but when one constantly believes that the end justifies the
> means and that what they're doing isn't wrong (and by extension, they
> feel no guilt...Charles clearly does), that's the road that leads to
> villainy. Yes Charles was wrong to treat Danger as a non sentient
> program to be manipulated as he saw fit in training the X-Men. Yes, he
> was wrong in altering Scott's memories. But his manipulations and
> deceit weren't borne from a desire to control the world around him and
> shape it to his desires. He was genuinely acting in what he thought
> was the best interests of those around him.
> I think most of us have done things we're not proud of. I think many
> of us have acted in a way that's completely self serving, yet we
> rationalized our actions as being good or for the benefit of others.
> I don't see Charles' actions as being any different.
> Simply put, I feel that Brubaker has allowed chinks to appear in
> Charles' saintly armor and the end result is a Professor X that is
> more rounded...and more human.
>
> Tony


You know, if you replace the words Charles Xavier with Dr. Doom or
Magneto you would basically get the same meaning. Sentences like, "the
ends justify the means, and all that "for your own good" come to mind
when I read this story.

I believe you are describing an anti-hero at best. Not a hero.

Please understand that I really am not trying to change anyone else's
mind but let us revisit the storyline again:

The first X-Men team meets a horrible end. Cyclops is in anguish. Xavier
removes the memory of the first X-Men from everyone who knew about them.
Angry brother of Cyclops comes back and reveals the truth.

In an ethical construct there are two quantities to the actions of
Charles Xavier:

Scott Summers is in mental anguish which could permanantly debilitate
him. The first choice is, do I, Charles Xavier ease his pain by erasing
his memories? This could be described as an ethical quandary and could
be morally neutral. Just like a resistant patient he could be excused
for relieving Scott's pain for the sake of his health.

The second action is the villanous action. Xavier removes the memory of
Scott's brother and the first X-men from everyone who knew them. Simply
to cover it up.

I would posit that my my problem begins where Xavier takes it upon
himself to remove choice from everyone around him. Rhetorically
speaking, he knows better and is willing to do anything to accomplish
his goals. Where Charles Xavier steers into the dark side is that he
edits OTHER peoples memories to cover up his activity. That is an
ethical crime because there was no reason to do it except to hide the
fact that he edited Scott Summers memories.

That is the problem that Brubaker has presented for future writers and
future storylines. When Xavier is on record as editing the feelings of
those closest to him for selfish reasons, how can people truly trust him?

Don't you think that the X-men would question why they even are
together? Perhaps Xavier edited their feelings to make them feel a sense
of togetherness. Wouldn't Wolverine, a loner ask, "hey, why am I hanging
around these losers when I could be banging chicks and drinking beer."
Or Emma Frost asking, "Why did I become interested in teaching
X-students when I could be shopping? Or Rogue asking, "Why did I stay
with the X-men after they helped me with my powers?"

These storylines now are now possibilities.

It is a dark and unfriendly X-Mansion when you have a Xavier without ethics.


badbad
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

badbad <user.TakeThisOut@example.net> wrote in
news:s9M_i.9493$ww2.6910@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:

> To whit, Xavier is now on record as editing the thoughts of people in
> order to cover up his questionable actions. Based on Brubaker's
> writing, the death of the first X-Men was so damaging to Scott that he
> had to erase the knowledge of a brother he has known his entire life.

I know. I'm making this argument in another part of this thread. Just
the same, I can see that he's used his powers this way historically, and
then stopped.
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

grinningdemon <grinningdemon.TakeThisOut@austin.rr.com> wrote in
news:m7pnj3pfqlvm06tihn44rk5bhlkkb7lc14@4ax.com:

> I agree with you entirely...unfortunately, the retcon card is pretty
> much all that's left to play with Xavier...he's not really very
> interesting unless they tear him down...personally, I think they need
> to redem him (as much as possible anyway) and then kill him off (like
> they should have done years ago) before any more deep dark secrets pop
> up...he got the ball running but it's time for the X-Men to stand on
> their own...once and for all.

I'm typically with you, but I happen to like Xavier at the moment. The
outcast status is something new that I'd like to see explored. Plus, I
loved him under Morrison. This is why I've heard some people say that
killing off characters is a mistake. You just never know when a great
writer can make that character interesting.
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

mimf <mimf.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.11.15.00.02.13.157532@nospam.com:

>> It's very different from what Xavier did for Jean...he didn't take
>> Jean's memories of her friend away...he just put of blocks to keep
>> her from using her powers until she was older.
>
> He also numbed her memories of the event. I'm not sure to what extent.
> I don't think she remembered she'd had telepathic powers, though I
> could be wrong.

http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/j/jeangrey.htm
http://www.mutanthigh.com/phoenixIV.html
http://www.thexaxis.com/indexes/backstory/Phoenix.htm
http://www.comicvine.com/myvine/Phoenix/jean%20grey/


Yes, I know these are fan-based, but these sites are typically very
accurate. None of them suggest that Jean's memories were in any way
numbed. She was in a state of catatonia. Xavier brought her back,
suppressed her telepathy (because she couldn't control it) and brought
out her TK.
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

Just to add more fuel to the fire, didn't Xavier try to stop Amelia
Voght from leaving him by using his powers round about the time
Cyclops first came to the mansion? She realised with horror what he
almost did and then had nothing to do with Xavier till we meet her as
part of the Acolytes. I've always been intrigued by that little
incident, and I wonder now how it fits chronologically. Sure, he
stopped himself in time from using his powers to force her to stay,
but had he already lost the Deadly Genesis team by this point? Or was
it slightly? And what would that mean for his sense of morality - was
it declining, or did he just realise the enormity of the Deadly
Genesis mindwipe (would he have mindwiped Amelia too)?
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

TonyJ1675 RemoveThis @aol.com wrote in news:5a4a636d-89a4-4b29-96b5-a2065b817935
@f80g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> --I disagree. All of Xavier's actions now have to come into scrutiny
> and the reassessment is that Xavier is a man who is many shades of
> grey. For the most part Charles Xavier is a heroic character. He
> founded the X-Men on the simple notion of equality. He's fought
> against evil mutants. He's fought to ensure a brighter future for
> both mutants and humans. Yet at the same time, he's done things that
> aren't terribly heroic. He's erased memories. He's manipulated
> people. He's done some things that others would see as villainous.
> The key difference to me is that all of Charles' actions stem from an
> awareness of right and wrong, and he strives to do what's right. He
> may not always succeed, but there's no denying that his heart is in
> the right place. Contrast that with more traditional villains, who
> seek to do things that are clearly wrong. They may rationalize their
> actions, but when one constantly believes that the end justifies the
> means and that what they're doing isn't wrong (and by extension, they
> feel no guilt...Charles clearly does), that's the road that leads to
> villainy. Yes Charles was wrong to treat Danger as a non sentient
> program to be manipulated as he saw fit in training the X-Men. Yes, he
> was wrong in altering Scott's memories. But his manipulations and
> deceit weren't borne from a desire to control the world around him and
> shape it to his desires. He was genuinely acting in what he thought
> was the best interests of those around him.
> I think most of us have done things we're not proud of. I think many
> of us have acted in a way that's completely self serving, yet we
> rationalized our actions as being good or for the benefit of others.
> I don't see Charles' actions as being any different.
> Simply put, I feel that Brubaker has allowed chinks to appear in
> Charles' saintly armor and the end result is a Professor X that is
> more rounded...and more human.

You just described a more rounded villain.

Your only separation from guys like Dr. Doom and Magneto is that
you made the distinction that Xavier knew his actions were wrong and
felt guilt for them.

But that just means Xavier continued to do his actions even though
he knew they were wrong. While Doom may believe himself right,
many criminals know their actions are wrong yet do them. And some
feel guilt afterwards and even during the crimes.


As for a desire to control the world around him and shape it to
his desires, doesn't Danger fall into that catagory? If we go with
Whedon's story, then Xavier knew what Danger was, yet Xavier chose
to see it as something else and forced it to be something else.
And saying that it was just a machine is a questionable defense
when you consider the Marvel universe has its share of sentient
machines, some of which probably have rights. And that under
normal circumstances, Xavier and the X-Men would probably be
fighting *for* the defense such machines, as long as they weren't
"evil" machines. (Of course, Danger had conveniently turned
comic book "evil" by the time it broke free.)


Though personally, I just see the last several years as highly
ignorable writing. Xavier has long had darker sides, but suddenly
everyone started retconning questionable acts into his past. The
Illuminati, Deadly Genesis, Danger... None of which were
particularly good stories on one level or another, none really
demanding to be told, but all striking at roughly the same time.

Deadly Genesis was just a launching pad for a years long Vulcan
storyline. Danger was yet another out-of-control Danger Room
storyline which ran out of touch with the rest of the X-verse.
And Illuminati... Well, Illuminati in its own right would be bad,
but coming out of Civil War only made it worse.
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:40:15 -0800, James Wyllie wrote:

> Just to add more fuel to the fire, didn't Xavier try to stop Amelia Voght
> from leaving him by using his powers round about the time Cyclops first
> came to the mansion? She realised with horror what he almost did and then
> had nothing to do with Xavier till we meet her as part of the Acolytes.
> I've always been intrigued by that little incident, and I wonder now how
> it fits chronologically. Sure, he stopped himself in time from using his
> powers to force her to stay, but had he already lost the Deadly Genesis
> team by this point? Or was it slightly? And what would that mean for his
> sense of morality - was it declining, or did he just realise the enormity
> of the Deadly Genesis mindwipe (would he have mindwiped Amelia too)?

I think he's got a constant battle going on with the temptation of using
his powers. He's also got the dilemma of whether it would be better to use
them or not use them. The very nature of his powers lends itself to
abuse. He's done a lot of things in the past that he regretted. I think
some of the heroic things he's done were because he felt a need to redeem
himself in his own eyes.
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

Tony wrote:
> On Nov 15, 6:18�am, badbad <u... RemoveThis @example.net> wrote:

----SNIP-----

>>
>> It is a dark and unfriendly X-Mansion when you have a Xavier without ethics.
>
> --he's not completely without ethics. Between this and the situation
> with the Danger Room, we've seen 2 _major_ incidents involving a
> breach of ethics on Charles' part. Of course we've also seen him, in
> the past, willing to wipe peoples' minds or control them, depending on
> the situation. Charles has *always* employed questionable tactics.
> He's always rationalized his actions (just as villains do) as being
> for the greater good. Many times he's right. Sometimes he's
> wrong.
> And you're making a blanket assumption that just b/c Charles did this
> in the past he's going to do it again. It's a logical possibility and
> certainly something the X-Men should confront him with
> but it's not definite and I think the X-Men would have to balance
> everything he's done for them vs this violation of trust. I'm not
> saying he should get off scot free. In fact, I do agree that the X-Men
> should hold him accountable.
>
> Tony


Everyone who seems to support the idea that Xavier is still a hero
ignores the fact that Brubaker has written that Xavier has performed a
questionable act THEN covered up his actions. The second part is the
most important. The second part is the axis where his convictions become
clear.

Without consent, he has edited the memories of people who knew about the
first X-Men.

Without consent. That is in "non-consensual." That is in "without
permission."

He did this act to cover up the fact that he edited the memory of Scott
Summers. Xavier's sole purpose was to cover up and remove the freedom
of choice from people who either cared for him (Moira) or were under his
supervision (the other X-Students)

He is not only a bad friend/lover to Moira but he is also a child abuser
to his students!

Unless someone re-writes the current storyline I conclude Xavier is not
a hero. I would accept an anti-hero monicker to describe him.

Personally I think he is a villain.

Dr. Doom does bad things to protect Latveria. Dr. Doom knows that he
could run the world better than anyone else - he probably could run the
world better. Dr. Doom is better than Xavier because he at least is
willing to accept the the disapproval of the world while Xavier hides
behind the shield of self-delusion.


badbad
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

On 15 Nov 2007 12:19:45 GMT, Dan McEwen <ferroSPAMboy RemoveThis @gmail.com>
wrote:

>grinningdemon <grinningdemon RemoveThis @austin.rr.com> wrote in
>news:m7pnj3pfqlvm06tihn44rk5bhlkkb7lc14@4ax.com:
>
>> I agree with you entirely...unfortunately, the retcon card is pretty
>> much all that's left to play with Xavier...he's not really very
>> interesting unless they tear him down...personally, I think they need
>> to redem him (as much as possible anyway) and then kill him off (like
>> they should have done years ago) before any more deep dark secrets pop
>> up...he got the ball running but it's time for the X-Men to stand on
>> their own...once and for all.
>
>I'm typically with you, but I happen to like Xavier at the moment. The
>outcast status is something new that I'd like to see explored. Plus, I
>loved him under Morrison. This is why I've heard some people say that
>killing off characters is a mistake. You just never know when a great
>writer can make that character interesting.

Fair enough...but when you stack the many, many years of thoroughly
uninteresting storylines and characterization vs. the brief periods
when he's been worth reading about, I still think he's better off
dead...of course, I think it's safe to say that he's around for the
forseeable future because I doubt they'd have him punch out when he's
on the outs with everyone...they'd probably make it a huge x-event in
and of itself.
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007