What John Byrne has to say about his new X-Men: Elsewhen story

Before I begin, while I've made clear in the past that the Phoenix Saga is not one of my favorite storylines - not on its own anyway - I am aware that terrible SJW Heather Antos actually attacked Byrne over bizarre accusations that he's supposedly homophobic/transphobic, even though he was the creator of Alpha Flight's Northstar, and it was originally his intention to emphasize that Jean-Paul Beubier was homosexual. From what I can tell, Antos must've attacked Byrne more out of bizarre jealousy along with virtue-signaling, and she does seem to have embarrassed herself with her employers over that.

But with all that said, does that mean I have to like the Phoenix Saga, or even the premise of Byrne's new alternate continuity story? Of course not, and seriously, what he's written up today is, IMO, distasteful, based in part on my being a fan of Jean Grey, and would I be taking this position if I weren't a fan? Anyway, Byrne was interviewed by the NY Times (archive link), and here's what's brought up in discussion:

Now 76, Byrne has re-emerged with what he’s calling his swan song: “X-Men: Elsewhen,” an alternate reality hardcover which revisits the X-Men at the point where he left, without his former collaborators but with a big plot twist: Phoenix was not killed.

Viewed within the specific context, if Jean was rescued from the Shiar and brought back to Earth as though nothing happened, after she allegedly wiped out billions, is that in good taste? Hardly. That told, what comes up next in the main interview is eyebrow raising:

For readers who may not be well-versed in the long history of the X-Men, can you briefly talk about the controversy around the Phoenix character?

There had never been a case where a superhero created by Stan and Jack had been turned into a villain. And we did that. We had her go out and blow up a whole planet and destroy an entire alien race. [Then editor in chief] Jim Shooter knew this was coming, but for some reason he said, “She must be punished” — that Phoenix had to be taken to a “prison asteroid,” and horribly tortured for all eternity. I said, “I’d rather kill her.” So that’s what we ended up doing.

What?!? Shooter thought Jean should be tortured?!? As though it weren't bad enough he wouldn't lift a finger in defense of her dignity as a character based on how she was being forced into the role of a criminal/murderess, he thought it okay to put her in a position where she'd end up being tortured to the end of time? Well, I knew there were sadly some very serious downsides to Shooter's MO, and Secret Wars was surely just the icing on the cake. What I did know years ago was that one of the story proposals was to have Jean put in a position similar to an actual Phoenix, where she'd revive but then be destroyed again repeatedly. I'm not sure if that's what Byrne's alluding to, but let's be clear: I just didn't find the whole premise appealing, and when the lead up to where Jean would be obliterated told that she'd wiped out 2 billion residents of an alien solar system...that made me sick. What's more, this whole storyline itself kept getting dredged up again and again, with Chris Claremont writing something vaguely similar when he got a job writing Justice League in the 2000s. What's so special about a story where a decent woman's turned into a monstress, but not one where she spends time with a loving family or something like that? And then, look what bizarre, questionable comment Byrne makes next:

But later, after you stopped working on X-Men books, Jean was brought back. So is anything ever really at stake in mainstream comics?

When Mark Gruenwald, my friend and editor, died unexpectedly, I mentioned it on my website and the first response was, “Oh, that’s terrible. I hope he recovers.” I thought: Oh my God, we’ve trained fans to expect that no death is actually permanent, even in the real world!

But this wasn't the real world they were dealing with! This was science-fiction/fantasy! And the later 1988-98 Excalibur was one of the most surreal series of all in Marvel's output. Resurrection is part and parcel of science-fantasy whether Byrne likes it or not, and he acts like it's some kind of calamity if handled otherwise? I'm sorry, but no. Resurrection in science-fantasy is not the worst thing that could happen, and to restrict it even in the Marvel/DC universes, or single them out as though they alone aren't allowed to employ the concept is insulting to the intellect, and offensive. Why, if you know where to look, there's undoubtably stories about resurrection of fictional characters in science-fiction/fantasy that are very enjoyable, in otherwise good taste, and we're being lectured that it's somehow a crime? Good grief. And then, look who he says he enjoyed writing most:

Which of the characters is the most fun to write?

Cyclops was always my favorite X-Man, from when I first started reading the book. Wolverine, of course. I often say Wolverine is my fault because [when I came on] Chris told me that he intended to write him out of the book. I was Canadian at that time and said, “No way are you getting rid of the only Canadian!”

But Jean wasn't fun at all? Perhaps not even Storm, Kitty Pryde, Scarlet Witch, Lois Lane and Lana Lang when he later wrote and drew Superman, or even Wonder Girl and Big Barda? Byrne unfortunately had a questionable approach to women at the time, and that he had 3 or 4 of the leading ladies drawn with short hair in his stories was probably the beginning. I recall a Superman story where an alien from Apocalips named Sleez mind-controlled Barda and Superman, and put them in a bizarre fanfiction situation where a snuff filmmaker would record them in something like a porno flick. I once read that Jack Kirby disliked that story because he considered it an insult to his wife, whom Barda was meant as a tribute to (and IIRC, there was a scene where Superman implied she looked like glop?!?). Superman may not have fared much better in that tale, and it was decidedly a low point in Byrne's run. And again, it doesn't always seem like he had much affection for some of the women in his stories, not even Aurora in Alpha Flight. Honestly, in hindsight, some of that stuff comes across as quite ludicrous, and has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Is Byrne correct though, that Claremont wanted to jettison Wolvie? I don't know, but some history items tell that Claremont wanted to put Wolvie in the grave and revive him as a villain. You could reasonably ask there if Claremont really loved Logan as a character, and of course, whether he actually loved Jean too, considering where he took her in the late 70s as the X-Men writer.

When people talk about giants of the era you came up in, you and Frank Miller are often on similar footing. Thoughts about his treatment of Wolverine?

This will get me in trouble, but I didn’t care much for Frank’s Wolverine. In terms of creating a hugely popular character, he did the right thing. My gut reaction was: beautiful artwork, but I don’t know this guy.

Well, based on Miller's appalling leftism, that's why I don't think I know him either, and he sure didn't give much reason to have faith in his ability to stand by his stories.

There’s a page in Elsewhen where you depict Wolverine brutally attacking Magneto. The backgrounds are bright red, his eyes are bright red, he’s in a murderous rage. Is this a new kind of ferocity for this character?

Well, it was always what we had in mind. There’s a scene, that I would never, in a million years, do. It’s Wolverine sitting at the breakfast table and Kitty Pryde [the youngest of the X-Men] comes in and says, “Hey,” in just the wrong tone of voice. And he guts her without a second thought and then goes on eating his Cheerios. Because he is quite literally a homicidal maniac.

Seriously, that's what he believes Logan should be?!? Strange. From what I'd read years ago, he wanted Wolvie to have a more likable persona, and this certainly is enough to wonder if Byrne's taking a contradictory position. He also makes it sound like he's taking the fictional-characters-are-real-life-people approach, which again, is utterly grating, illogical and brought down comicdom practically years ago.

And then, wouldn't you know it, an allusion to Byrne's leftism turns up:

It almost feels like we’re living in a comic book world today.

It feels like evil has won. I look at Washington and go, oh my God, this is the [guy] who I modeled my Lex Luthor in part on, back when he was just a big noise in business in New York.

Sigh. So he considers Trump a baddie and nothing else. A real shame. As though there weren't any better examples of bad billionaires out there at the time. On which note, as this Popverse article tells, if Byrne's take on Luthor was based on Trump, it was only partially, since there were other examples of billionaires at the time he'd drawn ideas from, including Ted Turner and Thomas Edison. But now, despite a suggestion to the contrary, Byrne sounds like he wants to claim Trump's literally the problem, and not the others. How odd. As a result, he's not all that different from Miller, so what's his point? At the end of the interview:

What do you consider your legacy?

When I look at my work, all I can see is the influences. There’s Neal Adams, there’s Joe Kubert, there’s Bernie Wrightson, there’s Jack Kirby, there’s Gil Kane. When people tell me they’re huge John Byrne fans, I go, “What are they seeing?”

I would like to think that when people see my work, it’s believable. If it’s two guys sitting at a bar, or if it’s two planets crashing into each other, I like to think that people will believe what they’re looking at. Just verisimilitude. There’s the word.

While there are several examples in his portfolio that're great, including his overall run on Fantastic Four, Byrne later stumbled by the turn of the century (his Spider-Man: Chapter One miniseries didn't get a good reception, IIRC), and I can't say he'll ever have as big a legacy as Kirby, Kane and Wrightson. Interesting that somebody who alluded to Kirby would've risked alienating him with a take on the aforementioned Barda from New Gods that was questionable at best, and ludicrous at worst. And Byrne's inability to avoid leftist political allusions will certainly for now make it difficult to decide how well his legacy can be admired overall.

Now again on the subject of Antos' recent attack on Byrne, what's really appalling is that she may have boosted sales for a story that I don't think should be considered a big deal, and alternate reality or not, it strikes me as tasteless. Interesting that she didn't attack Byrne because she cares about Jean, but rather, because she perceives his politics as incompatible with hers. That's got to be saying something. I don't like her MO, but even so, I'm not going to buy what Byrne's promoting as possibly his last writing and art project, because the whole premise was in questionable taste to start with, and became such an irritating cliche over the following decades. Even Colossus, if memory serves, was turned crooked in the early 90s, but he was never burdened with the kind of indignity Jean was when she was originally written obliterating citizens of an alien solar system, incurring the wrath of the Shiar. So why must Jean have suffered something that could make it difficult to use her as a character in later years? I know the setup was retconned with an alien lifeform disguising itself as Jean in 1985, but even so, that doesn't mean Claremont, Shooter, Byrne and company couldn't have created a new character in the mid-70s to take the role of the Phoenix instead of Jean being shoved into it. Now, we've since wound up with an embarrassing situation where the premise was repeatedly dredged up by bankrupt creators who can only think of emphasizing the darkness in the worst ways possible, and it's hurt comicdom very badly.