laughing_tree (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
laughing_tree) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
scans_daily2022-10-13 01:50 pm
laughing_tree) wrote in scans_daily2022-10-13 01:50 pm
Entry tags:
Legion of X #5 - "A Canticle for Liebenden"
It’s a story about how mutants live. Not just as people, but as a People. It’s mischievous and sarcastic and a looong way from being holy. It’s a book about ethics and culture and growing fungus out of your own brain. It’s a book about rituals and thrills, sexy times and casual death. Above all it’s about Shared Ideas, in all their terrible beauty, and what they can do to the minds, hearts, and souls of the communities adrift on their tides. -- Si Spurrier
Later:
no subject
Charles's current stance toward his son then reminded me of Moira and Proteus back when he was Mutant X. Which finally led me to an interesting thought, about how the once-saintly parents of mutantdom, Charles and Moira, have trended in one direction while the previously villainous children, David and Kevin, have gone the opposite way. A decades long changing of the guard.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
When she uploaded her mind into a robot body during a mental breakdown? That's when she became evil.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Does that make them any less evil?
no subject
no subject
no subject
Or, if you only consider her last life when she turned evil, then you acknowledge that she wasn't evil back then, just misguided and living thousands of years and being unable to change the fate of mutants made her myopic and insular until she tried one last thing with Charles which she thought failed (need I remind you that Omega Sentinel came back in time because in the original timeline it still worked out fine and Moira never betrayed them) and...
...wait this completely obliterates your analogy. Whoops.
no subject
(And, you know, the Omega Sentinel timeline is irrelevant because it never happened to "this Moira", and Moira had planned for genociding all the mutants on Krakoa all along, so...)
no subject
I have no idea if you are simply misremembering or outright lying, but no, she doesn't. She tries to explain that she wasn't going to force the cure on anyone, but Destiny stops her and explains to her what she, in fact, doesn't understand.
Also: does this mean you think Kavita Rao committed genocide, too?
"And, you know, the Omega Sentinel timeline is irrelevant because it never happened to "this Moira", and Moira had planned for genociding all the mutants on Krakoa all along, so..."
No, the Omega Sentinel timeline IS relevant because it proves that "curing" the mutants wasn't her plan all along, it was only the backup plan in case Krakoa failed. And Krakoa didn't fail until Omega Sentinel changed the timeline.
In any case, it's obvious you don't really care about how interesting and additive the retcon made Moira, so this is the end of this discussion. Bye bye.
no subject
I don't know how to tell you this, but "genocide was only her back-up plan!" is not the ringing endorsement you think it is. Besides, we have no context for why she didn't do it in the future, perhaps she changed her mind at some point in that deleted timeline, something she clearly didn't do at the end where she practically brags about it.
"In any case, it's obvious you don't really care about how interesting and additive the retcon made Moira, so this is the end of this discussion. Bye bye."
Ah yes, ending it with "this is objectively good and you just can't see it."
Bye.
no subject
Not sure why you would bring that up when it wasn't what either of us were talking about. But in any case: Moira's mutation is literally that she relives her life over and over again. Her power literally IS a fate worse than death and is the entire reason she invents the cure.
"yeah, Kavita Rao did genocide, that's the whole reason she was the atoner after that"
And Moira has seven lives in which she tries desperately to save mutantkind. She's literally lived thousands of years trying to prevent mutantkind's extinction up until her moment of despair in her tenth life, which she believes in her last chance.
"I don't know how to tell you this, but "genocide was only her back-up plan!" is not the ringing endorsement you think it is."
It's not an endorsement, it's the way the tragedy unfolds. Because that's what this story is: a tragedy. The fact that you are so hung up on Moira's character being different is silly when this is, objectively, the most interesting she has been in forty years.
"Ah yes, ending it with "this is objectively good and you just can't see it.""
Still with the strawman arguments, I see.
no subject
Yes, because no bigot has ever referred to something they hated as a disease before.
"And Moira has seven lives in which she tries desperately to save mutantkind. She's literally lived thousands of years trying to prevent mutantkind's extinction up until her moment of despair in her tenth life, which she believes in her last chance."
She spent the entire tenth life cooking up a way for all mutants to get to one place and make it easier for her to remove their powers. That's not a "moment of despair", she planned that all along.
And I'm sorry, did you just say that I made a straw man argument when the literal previous sentence you say "this is objectively the most interesting Moira's been in forty years?". Because, wow.
no subject
I'm afraid you are confusing the metaphor for the science fiction. In this case, she literally thought mutants were a disease, including herself.
"She spent the entire tenth life cooking up a way for all mutants to get to one place and make it easier for her to remove their powers."
No, she didn't.
"And I'm sorry, did you just say that I made a straw man argument when the literal previous sentence you say "this is objectively the most interesting Moira's been in forty years?". Because, wow."
You stated I said this as an "objectively good" thing when I didn't. "Objectively more interesting" is, however, the case. Again, just like Bucky is objectively more interesting now than he was before. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to the individual, but, again, objectively, they are more interesting.
no subject
Like in that allegory I made.
"No, she didn't."
Uh-huh.
"You stated I said this as an "objectively good" thing when I didn't. "Objectively more interesting" is, however, the case. Again, just like Bucky is objectively more interesting now than he was before. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to the individual, but, again, objectively, they are more interesting."
You also said it was silly to object to her being "objectively more interesting". That implies that it's better, meaning that it IS good. And, you know, "being interesting" is subjective too. Just ask a English lit professor and his bored student if they can agree whether the subject matter is interesting.