The Four Color Media Monitor

Another slapdash Q&A entry at Comics Alliance that ultimately fails to offer any intelligence in its take on the primary field leader of the X-Men, this one bases itself off a query of "Why all the hate for Cyclops?" and goes on to say:

Because Cyclops is basically terrible.

Yeah, I know, that’s exactly what I said about Aquaman. If I use it three times, though, it officially becomes a running gag, and that’ll come in handy the next time someone asks about Hawkman. I don’t know if it’s like this for everyone, but in my circle of friends, Cyclops is one of the most divisive, polarizing characters in the history of comics. I know otherwise rational people who insist that he’s not just the best X-Man, but one of the best characters ever. And they stick by this statement, even when you remind them that Cyclops is not Wolverine and therefore does not fight ninjas, like, all the time. It’s weird.

Well of course he's not Wolverine. When was he ever intended to be? Even if I like Logan better than Scott, does that mean I expect every X-Man to be just like the Canadian beastie? Not at all, and they shouldn't be. It pays to have heroes who could take a simpler approach to crimefighting than what Wolverine could, wish to avoid killing baddies and maintain a reputable personality.

If he's insinuating Cyclops has no personality, the same argument could've been made about Mr. Fantastic, who lagged behind his other 3 Fantastic Four partners in terms of personality in some people's minds. But that wouldn't be a fault of the character. No matter how much we respect them, it'd be the fault of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, who created both heroes, and if he's got any complaints about Scott Summers, he's gotta lay it at their feet. Yet, if there's any writers/artists who don't get a mention here this time, it's Lee and Kirby. Oh, I can guess. He respects them way too much to criticize their faults, even though they'd be a lot more respectable than today's writers misusing their creations, and would have no problems with anybody being objective.

He also says:

...the thing about Cyclops is that even if I agree with all that and see where he’s coming from, he’s still not Spider-Man.

That might not sound fair. I mean, there are plenty of comic book characters who aren’t Spider-Man, and at least seven or eight of them are well worth reading about. But for me, Spider-Man deals with those same ideas of perseverance under pressure in a much more interesting and elegant way, and his take on repression — that the mask gives him a false confidence that becomes real over time, giving him strength even despite a core that’s riddled with insecurities — is something I have a much easier time relating to.

Oh please. Since when did every hero in the MCU have to be like Spidey? Even in the MCU, it pays to be a bit varied. Sometimes it's better that not all heroes have to deal with personal problems in exactly the same way as the other. What I did think Cyke's early personality reflected was the problem with shyness (as in his initial reluctance to win over Jean), something I'd had a problem with myself when I was young, and if Cyke's early depiction was intended as a reflection of that, then it's something I could identify with when I was younger.

Towards the end, the writer says:

...that’s the image of Cyclops that I have in my head whenever he shows up: The guy who frowns at all the cool characters and tries to stop them from doing awesome things because the Professor says and we have a responsibility and you can’t just stab everyone and not now Jean I have to program the Danger Room. And he kind of has to be that way, because there has to be someone providing the core of the team so that everyone else can orbit around it and push away; Wolverine wouldn’t be Wolverine if he didn’t have Cyclops to rebel against. I’d just rather read about the rebelling than the guy who tells him hey stop that, it’s after 10 and we have a noise policy here.

Gee, is stabbing with claws always something we need to see Wolverine doing, no matter how fantastic a creation we think he is? Of course not. It's like saying that because Wolverine has claws and is less by the book than Cyclops, he's always in the right. That's hardly a workable view.

And in the end, his biggest problem, once again, is criticizing a fictional character, and squandering a chance to make a real argument. This kind of tabloid journalism is just what's spoiled everybody's perception of the medium.

Labels: marvel comics, X-Men