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

[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.