scans_daily: FF #17 - How do you solve a problem like Johnny Storm

sherkahn (

sherkahn) wrote in

scans_daily,
@ 2012-04-25 09:36 am UTC

Entry tags:

char: human torch/johnny storm, char: spider-man/peter parker, creator: jonathan hickman, title: ff

FF #17 - How do you solve a problem like Johnny Storm

We saw the preview earlier, and at times I can hear The Hangover movie theme playing in the background as I read this fun issue, and at times I hear "How do you solve a problem like Maria?"

yeah, I'm weird like that.

So many choice pages to post, but I have already posted 2, so I can only do 2 more.

Yes, that is Mary Jane Watson getting funky with Johnny Storm.

(Read 81 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

no subject

icon_uk
2012-04-26 12:24 am UTC (link)

Ummm.... yes she did, twice. Once when she accepted his proposal, and then when she said "I do". She signed up for the package deal of monogamy at that point. (And given this is the fictional story of perfect knighthood and fair play, then yes, we do have to assume she had that choice)

If she truly loved either man she would choose one, and explain to the other. Her refusal to make a choice led the aforementioned tragedy, which COULD have been avoided.

Likewise, if Lancelot truly loved both these people so much he have left for good, knowing it was the right thing to do.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 10 comments) (Show 10 comments)

no subject

arysteia
2012-04-26 12:48 am UTC (link)

I get that, but I don't accept that we have to assume choice on her part. It's an arranged marriage, agreed to by her father on her behalf. How much choice does a girl given in marriage by her father get? Exactly none, and the fact we know the chivalry part is fiction doesn't change that fundamental reality.

(This is not to say I disagree with what I think your over-arching point is, namely that both she and Lancelot should have risen above their feelings, having made various commitments.)

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

no subject

icon_uk
2012-04-26 11:17 am UTC (link)

I'm not sure you can have it both ways there, either it was an arranged marriage and love was irrelevant so the marriage was a sham, or the fact it was arranged is fairly irrelevant and they truly loved each other anyway.

All versions of the stories I know support the latter over the former; the love of Arthur and Guinevere is a byword for chivalrous love leading to marriage, not marriage as something she was railroaded into (if you'll forgive the anachronistic term).

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

no subject

whitesycamore
2012-04-26 05:37 pm UTC (link)

I'm not sure you can have it both ways there, either it was an arranged marriage and love was irrelevant so the marriage was a sham, or the fact it was arranged is fairly irrelevant and they truly loved each other anyway.

No. It's possible to grow to love someone, and yet regret that you've been forced into a bond that you didn't freely give yourself to.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

no subject

icon_uk
2012-04-26 05:48 pm UTC (link)

Fair point, but nothing in any Arthurian legend I can think of suggests that Guinevere felt that way, it's the fact her love for Arthur was so profound and strong that led to the tragedy, not the fact she had any sort of resentment for him.

If she had felt resentment, she would hopefully have had the courage to tell Arthur that her love for Lancelot was stronger.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

whitesycamore
2012-04-26 05:52 pm UTC (link)

If she truly loved either man she would choose one, and explain to the other.

Yeah, because "sorry Arthur, we've grown apart and now I'm in love with Lancelot" would've totally flown back then.

It's a bit weird how we're debating the morality of Guinevere in modern terms, when Arthur is the guy who had her BURNED TO DEATH in reaction to her infidelity.

By today's standards of 'true love,' none of the three truly loved the other. And the concept of true love is just about as arbitrary, slippery, and privilege-laden as the concept of 'intelligence,' or 'art.'

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 5 comments) (Show 5 comments)

no subject

icon_uk
2012-04-26 06:14 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, because "sorry Arthur, we've grown apart and now I'm in love with Lancelot" would've totally flown back then.

Plenty of royal marriages appear to have been fairly sex-free (or at least "sex until heir and a spare is produced" then sex free) for one reason or another.

I think the laws of the land sentenced her to that, and Arthur, like her, was subject to them (by his own decree).

Lancelot would have been executed too, but he ran like a rabbit, so it was at least MEANT to be even handed... barbaric yes, but even handed.

"Adultery with the heir to the throne" is still high treason on the UK statute books and was one of the very last crimes still punishable by death (up until 1998 believe it or not) before being amended to life imprisonment. (So James Hewitt had a narrow escape)

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 4 comments) (Show 4 comments)

no subject

whitesycamore
2012-04-26 07:21 pm UTC (link)

Plenty of royal marriages appear to have been fairly sex-free (or at least "sex until heir and a spare is produced" then sex free) for one reason or another.

I'm sorry, I don't really get how this relates to the discussion. It's not about whether Guinevere wanted (or didn't want) to have sex with Arthur - it's about the fact that there was no possibility for her leave Arthur to be with Lancelot in an 'honourable' way, either by modern or medieval standards.

Adultery was punishable by gruesome death, and divorce didn't exist. You suggest that perhaps Guinevere could have told Arthur how she felt, but as a wife Guinevere was expected to be a chaste, obedient possession. She'd already failed to live up to that standard by coveting Lancelot in the first place; I doubt that Arthur would have been understanding, since he would have been a man of his time.

Either way, debating whether or not their love was true, or if they behaved in an ethical way towards each other, ignores the fact that (if these people were real) they were operating under a very different understanding of what love meant.

I think the laws of the land sentenced her to that, and Arthur, like her, was subject to them (by his own decree).

Do you mean that he literally would have been powerless to save her, or that he felt *morally* bound to follow the law? If it's the latter, then I can recognise that he may have been living up to a sort of medieval code-of-honour, and that sticking to the laws of the land even though it was horrible to him might have seemed like the right thing to do.

However, from a modern perspective, "you have to die because the law says so" seems like a pretty paltry piece of justification, both ethically and romantically. I mean, it's not universal, but I think most people in our culture now would agree that cruel or unjust laws should not be obeyed.

I suspect Arthur didn't think of the law as cruel or unjust though, because again, product of his time.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

no subject

icon_uk
2012-04-26 07:40 pm UTC (link)

I was thinking more that if her love for Lancelot was THAT powerful, to the extent that despite being fully aware of the harm it would do, she pursued it, then some sort of arrangement MIGHT have been possible. Again, royals being married but having lovers elsewhere is hardly unknown. It was the deceit which was partly the root of the ensuing problems

If the King is seen to flout his own law because it inconveniences him, then there goes his much of his authority, and he's no better than any despot. ("Well, I didn't vote for him")

And I think that Arthur, as King, since he would have to be the one to pass sentence on his wife, whom he loved, AND his best friend (who he also loved), would be pretty damned devastated by what he had to do.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

no subject

whitesycamore
2012-04-26 09:23 pm UTC (link)

If the King is seen to flout his own law because it inconveniences him, then there goes his much of his authority, and he's no better than any despot. ("Well, I didn't vote for him")

So... therefore he should burn his wife because *not* burning his wife inconveniences him in the sense of undermining his authority? That decision would seem to be based on pragmatics, not morality--unless he was operating under a sort of Kohlberg law-and-order morality.

I personally think that if you don't burn women alive then you are a lot better than despots who do. And a lot worse than an unfaithful wife, for that matter.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	no subject biod 2012-04-27 02:05 pm UTC (link)
	In some versions Arthur holds the hope that Lancelot will save her, since he had to uphold the law... Which makes the deaths of all the people Lancelot had to kill to do so extra unnecessary, but what are ya gonna do? (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

(Read 81 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)