Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Comic Books >

The Politics of Quentin Quire

Page: 1(2)

19:31 / 07.01.03

Yes, I've mentioned Wolverine - I think in the NXM135 thread - and more significantly Emma, who's a murderer rather than an assassin - if you feel there's any distinction there. But they were both in the X-fold prior to the destruction of Genosha and the Institute taking on the wider political, social responsibilities I was talking about.

Just dug this out as it's relevant to the thread, particularly Byron's comments.

GM: What were we saying? X-Men ...political...
BY: X-Men as your overtly political work?
GM: Yeah, because that's the great thing about the X-Men . The X-Men is not about the costume. With Spiderman, if you take away the costume there's nothing there. You'd have the adventures of Peter Parker, which would be quite interesting, but with the X-Men, you can take away the costume, change the costume and you've still got the X-Men because it's driven by the concept. By the story. And the concept is just so simple - these are our children. They are here. They are different. How do we cope? What do we do to them? Y'know, it's constantly played out. It's played out as prejudice against so-called minority groups, it's played out in current prejudice. To me, the most outrageous hidden prejudice is adults versus children, which I think is pernicious just now. Quite literally, the fear of children, so the X-Men is talking about that kinda stuff and it has to be political, it's about things that to me, occur: the whole debate about superhumans and the possibility of superhuman is turning up in the New Scientist, in the Daily Bloody Express, let alone New Scientist, and Francis Fukuyama's latest book, Our Postman Future - This is the man who said History was about to die-

Regrettable Juvenilia

19:49 / 07.01.03

the "every [minority of choice/theorybitch] must be presented in a positive light" thing is just completely past ridiculous.

Just wanted to make something clear: this was definitely not what I was trying to say, nor do I believe it was Flux's (although I don't presume to speak for him, I don't think he identifies with QQ's politics as much as would be necessary to be so aggrieved). It's not about demanding that Morrison portray certain types of character in a certain way, more about observing the way he is doing it, and then (rather than switch off the 'political' side of our brains), reacting to that. So, for example, I think klint above hits 100% on the idea of what I first took the Xavier/Quire conflict as being about, and Crunchy's response to that is a good summary of the response I have to it. But I also like Byron and Quireboy's points since...

Also, I've had the title changed because it occurs to me that I was doing that thing of using the word 'Barbelith' to mean what I sometimes think it ought to mean rather than what it does - a more general thread is better, I think.

20:29 / 07.01.03

...I was doing that thing of using the word 'Barbelith' to mean what I sometimes think it ought to mean rather than what it does...

Sorry to be such a disappointment to you...

16:00 / 08.01.03

I was thinking that in some ways, Quentin may be Grant's revenge on Barbelith. I think this is Grant saying "this is the kind of activist I hate. the X-Men are the kind I like".

Flux said this in the original post. I just reread the first two QQ issues and I have to say that I totally agree with this assessment. I've changed my mind. I don't know that QQ is a spin on Barbelith, but he's definitely a spin on some of the "types" that would be associated with the board.

I don't think Grant's being negative about activism necessarily, but on the most recent read it felt like a condemnation of the more confrontational activism of OutRage etc. I get the feeling that QQ is a kid on purpose, and we're supposed to side with the adults on purpose, and that what Morrison is saying is that these activists may have their hearts in the right place, but they're acting like children and perhaps hurting the larger cause. It's almost a new plateau for Morrison's comic book theorizing, the logical extension of his obsession with humanity as a growth stage. It's also interesting in that he seems to be suggesting that sometimes the next generation isn't always better, which would be a new spin for him. Is he getting old?

And just for the record, I think the Hank/gay thing plays really well. This is obviously the "media commentary" arc. It doesn't feel like editorial fiat here, but like something Grant had planned: "This is how the media spins a mountain out of a joke." Very relevant, and it ties back in to people like Quentin (and the "types" he represents), who frequently spin overblown theories from incidental details.

The drug thing, too, doesn't feel editorially forced. He criticizing specific behavior, not drug use in general. This whole storyline, he's criticizing a specific set of tendencies. After criticizing the "other side" for years, he's turning his gaze on "his side," and recognizing that it's got problems.

17:06 / 08.01.03

Quoting Laurence:
"It's also interesting in that he seems to be suggesting that sometimes the next generation isn't always better, which would be a new spin for him. Is he getting old?"

Grant has been quoted several times as saying he feels as though the latest generation of 'kids' 'blew it', to quote from his Barbelith interview:

"But what you got in 1999 was - You got The Matrix, which was the entire Stormer ideal as a movie - but the actual kids blew the energy - I don't know what happened, they kinda let it dissipate. There was no new drug, there was really new music, there was linkin biskit music but it wasn't strong enough and the energy went into Primal Scream's album Xtrmntr or into The Authority or into Marvel Boy. People who were alert were picking up on it and putting it into art but the actual Kids, those fabled Kids, for the first time didn't turn it into anything huge. So I'm looking forward to the next one"

I've been wondering about the latest NXM arc, where he's going with his portrayal or perception of the 'youth' on display. With Cassandra Nova we had an overgrown child violently venting it's idea of singularity on the world and subcsequently being 're-educated', which I thought was a very powerful idea, told well. I do hope we don't see the same thing played out more literally with Quentin Quire. I give Morrison more credit than that, but I'm... wary, I suppose, of an anti-youth, anti-aggressive-questioning-in-search-of-identification message behind it all. Then again, as I said in the #135 thread, I may be backwards-thinking in my interpretation of it.

17:20 / 08.01.03

I'm... wary, I suppose, of an anti-youth, anti-aggressive-questioning-in-search-of-identification message behind it all

I wonder if a theme of the Riot storyline is going to be Identification as Self rather than Identification as Group. It's a powerful idea that he's expressed before, but in this age of theorybitch activism, where everything is only valid if channeled through something else, it's very aggressive. We see the beginnings of this in the first QQ issue with Slick, but even earlier with the Angel/Beak relationship (I see both of them "opting out" and "just being themselves"). This would be a criticism of the more militant minority activist groups, placing Grant in the "there is no 'straight-acting'" camp (all the more telling then that QQ's look fits a Queercore stereotype). The older generation are "teachers who happen to be mutant," while the new kids are "mutants who happen to be students."

On the surface this would be a very conservative and dated approach, but if we tie it into the rest of Grant's ouvre and consider the child/adult growth obsession he has, it could actually be very cutting edge and forward-looking (especially if the desire is the ultimate destruction of labels - in this scenario Xavier's approach only seemed conservative by small-picture thinkers).

All this is only a possible reading of the storyline, by the way, and not necessarily a reflection of my own politics.

17:32 / 08.01.03

Oh, that misguided mass culture, always wrongheadedly insistent on being what it is, instead of what The Grant thinks it ought to be.

Let me say at this juncture that in addition to regretting being a huge disappointment to the Flyboy, I regret having disappointed Grant Morrison as well.

yawn - thing's buddy

21:12 / 08.01.03

It's a similar tale to the one Milligan put in X-statiX. Arnie, a very powerful pubic mutant takes on his 'leaders/public guardian' avatars - he's more poweful than them and has a twisted worldview( and face)which has certain dumb logic. Arnie doesn't win. Neither will Quentin

But then GM doesn't do win/lose battles anyway.

So QQ is dramatic device to maintain the constant equilibrious conflict. Just like Arnie. There are elements to QQ's destructive logic which ring true with comments regarding his similarity to what GM perceives as destructive behaviour on Barbelith: the 12 year old in Wisconsin who trash's your idea with a 'Fuck You' springs to mind. But this is an example of teenage bolshieness which is not peculiar to this board.

He's an archetype.

Anyway:

I predict Xavier will be struck on the bonce with a lump of coal.

An the blobby fellow will get his bollocks chiseled.

And Xavier may well bring down a boy with a well timed rugby tackle.

23:16 / 08.01.03

And isn't that what we all buy the X-Men for? Unflinching, savage rugby tackles.

Arnie seemed rather clearly emotionally/intellectually stunted, to my casually perusing eyes, whereas Quentin talks a good deal of very valid frustration (though he is a bit of a loon for coming unhinged simply because he discovered he was adopted). I, and many others I would think, feel that his challenge is valid, even if his accompanying actions are that of a thuggish momma's boy.

(Spoilers below, in case anyone cares)
And the twist they put on their 'integration' in that arc is a very different story to what I think we'd see in NXM. Although Xavier accepting a violent child into his inner circle and subsequently poisoning him would sell some units, to be sure. Perhaps after that he could grow a 'Gangs of New York' mustache and tie Jean to some railroad tracks.

yawn - thing's buddy

07:14 / 09.01.03

of course - it's not the same thing - but there are parallels.

18:47 / 09.01.03

I've been thinking about similarities between Arnie the Fanboy and Quentin Quire for a while now too. It would have been interesting to see the 2 of them together at Xavier's.

20:00 / 09.01.03

On the point raised about whether the next generation represents progress ... from a human perspective QQ's stance is more radical than Xavier's, but from a mutant perspective his actions and philosophy are more reactionary. His actions are petty and vengful - he's your typical rabid right-winger seizing on a tragedy to promote a fascist viewpoint.

Returning to the points I made earlier re. the comparison being set up between him and Jean, despite his 'queercore' trappings he's adopted a traditional macho stance - the ideological battle can be intepreted as male power vs female power, as much as the Bush administration analogy of hawks vs doves. With Xavier's evil female opposite, Hank 'coming out', Emma acting like a drag queen, sexual politics is bubbling under the surface.

I like the point about Cassandra essentially being an infant. The question is does her solipsim act as a contrast to Xavier's worldview or foreshadow the fascist consequences of only one mutant ideology?

23:16 / 09.01.03

Just to add on the point about the sexual politics theme. We see from the cover of 137 that Quentin has captured Xavier and trapped him in a helmet that presumably knocks out his telepathy. If you regard Xavier as the patriach of the Institute this is classic castration complex stuff - Quentin rejects Xavier as a father figure and, fearing Xavier may metaphorically castrate him - placing him under observation, sending him to a retreat - decides to 'castrate' Charles first by removing his powers.

23:18 / 09.01.03

Emma acting like a drag queen

Examples?

Matthew Fluxington

23:30 / 09.01.03

Yeah, what do you mean by that? She's been dressing like that since her introduction in the 70s...it's not a new thing for her.

yawn - thing's buddy

07:23 / 10.01.03

It's the language she dresses her utterances with, rather than her fashion.

The Natural Way

08:28 / 10.01.03

Yeah, she plays bitchy camp real well.

09:16 / 10.01.03

Yeah, that's what I mean. Her clothing hasn't changed but her attitude has.

Emma is to Lord Fanny, what Jean is to Ragged Robin.

10:22 / 10.01.03

As Beak is to Jack Frost...

(sorry Runce)

11:08 / 10.01.03

Her clothing hasn't changed but her attitude has.

I don't really see this, but I suppose YMMV...

16:55 / 10.01.03

Well she's always been a nasty bitch but not a camp, witty nasty bitch.

17:11 / 10.01.03

Anyway, back to the topic...

On p4 of NXM136 (see Comics Continuum) Quentin mocks how Xavier and the other teachers want the students to be respectful and do nothing despite suspecting his gang is on the rampage. This ties in with the points raised about QQ exposing the flaws in Xavier's dream.

20:30 / 10.01.03

I think of Angel as being more Jack Frost, myself.

21:00 / 10.01.03

At first reading that Angel comparison I made the 'what the hell?' face, but a split-second later I realized that the comparison (thus far) isn't far from the mark at all. Now all she needs to do is toss a molotov cocktail into the school windows and kick Xavier in the teeth.

Actually, that may still happen.

13:27 / 12.01.03

There's always Reynard.

Beak epitomises this 'stormer'/punk ideal (RevCo t-shirt, straight edge but not really) that GM's been talking about recently.

Angel is excellent, though. Perhaps I've been led astray by gender.

Page: 1(2)