The Value of Wolverine

[dewline]

Discussed in an essay in the Edmonton Journal by one Michael Hingston.

The closing quote from John Byrne is interesting in several ways, but I'm not sure that I agree with it right now.

Comments

[seawasp]

I agree and disagree. I think Wolverine was an awesome addition to the canon when he first appeared and for the first few years of his existence. However, he became the nucleus around which a lot of the worst Iron Age excesses came to be perpetrated. Would this have happened WITHOUT Wolverine? Probably. The Iron Age was coming, and lack of Wolverine would have just meant someone else would have made a character like him that would trigger it.

Would it have been DIFFERENT? Yes, and I'm not sure but what it might have been better, depending.

Wolverine's value, originally, was that he was pretty much the ONLY hero treading the line EXACTLY. He was clearly working for the angels, but his personality and powers and approaches to problem-solving were all on the line or even on the OTHER side of the line. He was the exact definition of the border case, the person who is just that one tiny bit over the line towards hero rather than villain. Within the X-Men, he was a constant reminder of how easy it is to slip over that line, and why he stood sentry AT the line -- to make sure the others knew if they were going to step over it.

But when the Iron Age got rolling, almost everyone got grim'n'gritty, and that made Wolverine less interesting by comparison.

[moon-custafer.livejournal.com]

almost everyone got grim'n'gritty

My spouse actually calls that "Wolverangst."

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Understandable, that.