Excalibur #26: The Fantasy Is Over

[superboyprime]

"Regrettaby, Excalibur leaves me with the distinct impression that Tini Howard has no real understanding of British identity, and no real interest in the topic either. Since her core theme seems to be some sort of battle against reactionaries, I suspect the idea that Britain is withdrawing from dealing with mutants and so forth is meant to be some sort of Brexit allegory, but what it amounts to in practice is the baffling idea that – without any explanation – meaningful political influence attaches to a weirdo who is openly a member of a mystical coven. Which… again, what? What does any of this have to do with the iconography of the British right? The iconography of the British anything? If Reuben Brousseau is meant to represent Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees-Mogg… I mean, that’s like claiming that Dr Druid symbolises Donald Trump. You can say it, but it’s bollocks. And if Reuben’s not meant to represent that then… why does he matter?" - Paul O'Brien

Comments

[lordultimus]

That is imperialism. It doesn't matter who threw the first punch, putting a specific ruler for your own political aims is literally imperialism.

[alliterator]

Except the political aim here are "making sure genocide doesn't happen."

This is like someone killing Hitler and someone else saying, "Hey, that was an imperialism!"

[lordultimus]

...This is literally what happened after WWII. Hitler died, then Germany was split into East and West Germany by the two rival powers of the world, both setting each side to be sympathetic to their own.

Hitler dying in and of itself was not imperialism (not that he was directly killed by anyone other than his own hand anyways). The reorganization of Germany was imperialism. In the same way, deposing of Morgan Le Fay wasn't imperialism, but putting Jaimie Braddock of all people in her place was.

[alliterator]

The problem, of course, is that there really wasn't any other choices except Jamie. The throne of Avalon had to be "legitimate" and that meant either a member of the Braddock family or Arthur himself. And, well, you saw how Arthur is now.

We haven't seen Avalon being mined for resources or taxed or had any undue burdens placed upon it. Germany post-WW II had all of those things.

Heck, we haven't even seen more than one or two mutants move to Otherworld. (Just one, to my recollection.)

[lordultimus]

I'm pretty sure there was a datapage somewhere that said there were 1500 mutants now living in Avalon, or something. And I'd trust the traumatized Brian over Jamie any day, just let someone else do the actual ruling. Or hell, Betsy, just have someone do the day-to-day stuff while she goes out being Captain Britain. Lots of kings have done just that.

We HAVE seen Jamie seemingly kill people for little reason than his own amusement. I wouldn't be surprised if he HAS done some major shit and covered it up, he's certainly powerful enough to.

[alliterator]

"I'm pretty sure there was a datapage somewhere that said there were 1500 mutants now living in Avalon, or something."

Really? Because I've never seen this and Dani was pretty worried when ONE mutant moved to Otherworld, since that whole "death is permanent" thing.

"And I'd trust the traumatized Brian over Jamie any day, just let someone else do the actual ruling."

So would I, but unfortunately Brian didn't WANT to rule. You can't force someone to be king against their will.

"We HAVE seen Jamie seemingly kill people for little reason than his own amusement."

I mean, I never said he was a great choice, only that he was probably the only choice available. But also, the person he killed was also someone he created so...not quite sure how that works. (We haven't seen him kill any citizens of Avalon, is my point.)

[laughing_tree]

As I've said elsewhere, it's not a question of whether the behavior can be justified in story. *Anything* can feel justified with the right writing, since writers get to stack the decks. It's a question of whether it's the best idea to do a story justifying such behavior.

If you do a story about how the victims in the Salem witch trials really secretly were evil demonesses, you've just created a situation that justifies the witch trials. But maybe don't do a story like that?

Of all the stories in the world one could tell, why do one that shows how the Welsh-based hero is actually a terrible king so putting an Englisher-than-English Braddock on his throne is a good thing that's well and truly justified, actually?

[alliterator]

"Of all the stories in the world one could tell, why do one that shows how the Welsh-based hero is actually a terrible king so putting an Englisher-than-English Braddock on his throne is a good thing that's well and truly justified, actually?"

...what Welsh-based hero are you talking about? If you are referring to Morgan le Fey, she has always been a supervillain in the Marvel universe.

[deh_tommy]

They’re clearly referring to King Arthur here. In the myths he pushed back against the invading Anglo-Saxons.

[alliterator]

Ah. Generally, Arthur is referred to as British, not Welsh. That threw me off.

But also, calling the Braddocks "Englisher-Than-English" is also wrong, considering their father wasn't even born on Earth-616. We don't know where he was born, actually.

[laughing_tree]

Continuity trivia, like saying Cyclops counts as minority representation because he's a mutant. For all intents and purposes, the Braddocks are upper crust WASPs.

[alliterator]

For all intents and purposes, King Arthur is a super British hero. Calling him Welsh is thus mythology trivia.

[laughing_tree]

The Welsh feel otherwise.

[alliterator]

Good for them. To everyone else, this is King Arthur.

[laughing_tree]

No one's saying it needs to be treated with reverence. But given the real world resonances, doing a story justifying its English usurpation is... oof.

[alliterator]

...What? Nothing in the story is "justifying its English usurpation." There's interpretation and then there's just wildly off interpretation.

[laughing_tree]

The Braddock are -incredibly- English.

[alliterator]

And to most of the world, so is King Arthur. That's my point. You are talking about British vs British here.

[laughing_tree]

And to most of the world, mummies are schlocky horror movie monsters. Doesn't mean stories should just ignore the unfortunate implications about Egyptian culture in their portrayal. Since when is minority viewpoint something to be invalidated because it's the minority?

I mean, I have no doubt Tini Howard did see it as just British vs. British. That just circles back to the original criticisms about how it's a story about British matters from someone who only demonstrates a surface understanding of them.

But I don't really want to dwell on the point because it's not the most important part. Even ignoring the whole English angle, it's still a story finding a justification for essentially annexing another nation.

[deh_tommy]

Betsy was arguing in court for Captain Jubilee’s personhood before she was interrupted by Merlyn’s attack. That’s not a good look no matter who comes out on top there: if Betsy failed to make her case, then they're chronal abominations and either Jamie’s allowed to keep doing it or Saturnyne punishes him for this transgression against her, and if Betsy won the argument then the king permakilled a woman (a Captain Britain, no less) who posed no feasible threat to him for little more than poops and giggles and the baseline Betsy not only never gave a crap but actively supported him even after witnessing the act. Either way he’s been splintering reality apart to make his own personal slave corps.

[tinygaylaura]

Or to use a fantasy example it's like saying the kids from Chronicles of Narnia are the bad guys for overthrowing the White Witch or that the Rebels in Star Wars are bad for killing Emperor Palpatine and replacing the Empire with the New Republic

Heroes taking down an evil ruler and replacing them with someone who will rule better and more fairly than they did is an age old trope in fiction that has an "Evil empire/villainous monarch" as the foe

[deh_tommy]

And the person who’ll rule better is Jamie “Insane Murderous Child Slaver” Braddock. HELLO!?

No, that’s like if they overthrew the White Witch and then claimed Narnia for Telmar or even the British Empire and when Aslan came by to get them to stop they’re all “nuh-uh, this is OUR turf now”, or if after deposing Old Sheev they installed a Hutt as the new Emperor.

[tinygaylaura]

I don't disagree with you about Jamie "I went insane and all I got was this lousy facial hair" Braddock being a poor choice of replacement

I'd be fine with them replacing him with a mutant who is a better choice. It wouldn't be hard to find since basically ANY mutant other than Cortez, the Strucker twins, Sinister or Emplate would be a better choice