>>120438661>I just don’t think it was a good long-term narrative device.But that's the thing...
>It might be more interesting if mutants go through periods where they’re loved, where they’re hated, and where no one cares too much about them.But this IS what happens. I mean, mutants aren't always as hated. Early on they weren't as much. And prejudice wasn't always so pronouced. The end of Claremont's era he was building up to kind of create a situation where a lot of prejudice stopped (before he was shit canned). But the thing is, there is times when mutants are more hated than not. Dark Reign had Osborne whipping up a frenzy so you ended up with Utopia, especially post House of M and depowered mutants.
Of course it isn't one straight narrative because of the nature of comics having so many different creators. What mutants are has changed all the time. Morrison introduced new ideas, Hickman is too (whether you love or hate them). The animated series to me had just the right amount of showing societal hate towards mutants. This shit fluctuate in media depending on so much stuff.
I know people like to say that the metaphor doesn't make sense, but when it is written well it does make sense. It is just difficult to consider a coherent narrative because well, comics have different creators with different takes. I think in general people in the Marvel universe go through periods of love and hate for ALL super powered beings depending on what is happening.
Us as the viewer for comics are seeing the "big" events but not the every day lives of a Marvel universe citizen. A mutant power going haywire could be as rare as terrorism in a western country - something that does happen but not as often as the media make out. Media perception in the real world over exagerates how you can die compared to what really kills people (you're very unlikely to die ot terrorism compared to cancer or heart disease). But of course no one wants to read a comic where nothing happens.
