Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities The All Avengers Thread

Great stuff, guys. I'll contribute my thoughts on those issues sometime later this weekend.

Okay, so I appreciate that you both noted the racist and misogynist undertones of this set of issues. And, yes, Byrne was drawing X-Men, FF (written by Marv Wolfman), and Avengers all at the same time, and doing them all beautifully, a triple threat the likes of which hadn't been seen since those few months in 1968 when John Buscema was doing some of the best work of his life on Avengers, Sub-Mariner, and Silver Surfer all at the same time.

One of the main things that bothers me about what I call the Avengers' "Nominal Michelinie Era" (because he came and went like he didn't really care about anything other than the paycheck) is how bitty the stories are, with none of the grandeur that personifies the Avengers at their best.

As for this particular set of issues, I especially dislike how Wanda comes off as weak and victimized. Much as I came to despise Dan Slott's Mighty Avengers run several years ago, I do think he had the right idea in having Pietro be the one possessed by Ch'thon. Having a female superhero as the one possessed by a supernatural force is a lazy and queasy option.

It WAS a great twist--I fully agree! But what makes it regrettable was how writers (especially Bendis) used it to eventually DESTROY Wanda's character!

Also, the idea is credited to Gruenwald and Grant (as explained in the essay I mentioned), not Byrne. I'm sure it was Byrne's idea to put the connection in X-Men 125, but he can't get the credit/blame for Wanda and Pietro's parentage.



As a kid i found her annoying. I think as a result, I still have an involuntary mental eyeroll when I see her.



I honestly think the IDEA of using Affirmative Action in this scenario was pretty good. The EXECUTION, however....



Again, though it's possible Byrne had some input during his run, he has no writing or plotting credits here. Michelinie was the main writer, with Gruenwald, grant and even Roger stern receiving some co-writing or plotting credits.



Actually Heather barely appears at all (only in passing in 181) and Pietro is actually pretty heroic and tolerable overall in these issues. So you're memory's likely a bit faulty there.



Yeah, I had a feeling that Gerber Beast issue might have been one I'd rather have been included.

Hank really was a really good Avenger, better than he was or will be among the X-Men. Mostly, he just stands out better among the former and adds something to the character dynamic. He honestly didn't save the day as much as I thought he maybe should have. In fact, with the friendship with Simon blossoming, it seemed he was removed right when he was really starting to hit his stride. Very unfortunate.



Just a slice of why I admire the man's work!

Some thoughts on the Avengers stories of this period:

1. I never thought of it as the "real" Avengers when Thor wasn't involved. I was always glad that he kept popping in whenever possible.

2. I also never thought of Falcon's treatment in these issues as racist, though, in hindsight, I can see how it can be taken that way. At the time, I thought it was just another example of realism in comics--not every hero works out with the Avengers, regardless of race. It would have been nice if Sam had gotten his Big Hero Moment, but that would have been what we were expecting. It might have been intended to be more realistic to have someone who didn't click, for whatever reason.

I can't recall Hawkeye's sour grapes attitude toward Sam, though. I might have thought Clint was just jealous.

Race is a very sensitive matter in US culture, and one has to be careful how people of color are portrayed in media. Perhaps Sam's depiction would have seemed less egregious if the Black Panther were in the same lineup. Of course, that would have negated the story's indictment of Affirmative Action.

3. Wanda & Pietro's parentage: I wish they had left it as the Whizzer and Miss America. The Magneto thing was fun and rather shocking at the time (and I didn't dope it out until I read Gruenwald's text piece), but it ultimately just complicated things, as did the Django Maximoff plotline. I think this is where Marvel and DC in general started to shift their focus backward--into retconning and retelling and revamping past events of their own stories--instead of moving forward to tell new stories. There's a lot of navel gazing in such stories.

Once Wanda and Pietro were given parents (whoever they were), it would have been better to let it go and move forward.

THIS!

I went out of my way to not use the word "racist" in my review, though I certainly danced around it, but playing the proverbial race card wasn't my desire. I also realize that racial sensitivity back then is nowhere near what it is these days, for better and for worse. For better, because of course it's better that racial relations have overall improved in those decades. For worse, because the sensitivity has gone so far as to make frank discussions that still need to happen virtually impossible.

Bottom line is this storyline simply would NOT happen in the modern era of comics. Back then, it was still possible to tell this story, but the ball was dropped. Dropped because a more balanced view of Affirmative Action and how it affected the Falcon could have been a landmark storyline for Marvel. Instead, they used it to completely trash the concept by showing that the Falcon never belonged among Earth's Mightiest Heroes. I mean, he has some moments where he doesn't completely foul up, but ultimately we're left with the impression of someone who didn't ever want to be there and who left with the earliest opportunity. Whatever one thinks of the concept, I'm pretty sure their were many African-Americans who both benefited and thrived with the opportunity that they otherwise wouldn't have been given. In effect this symbolizes that the opportunity was neither wanted nor beneficial to anyone, and I think that's a poor example to set to a readership, some of whom had to have been young black readers.

So I certainly have no objection to there being a screw-up Avenger of any persuasion, but I feel it was a very poor choice under these circumstances.

I'm the one who used the word "racist", so I take full responsibility.

Lardy's post right above this one pretty much mirrors my own opinion on that story.

Well said.

You know, it would have been interesting if Cap and Falc had discussed this at some point over in Cap's book, but I guess a scene of two heroes coming to an understanding wouldn't have been perceived as dramatic.

Years later, during John Byrne's later Avengers run, a big deal was made out of Mr. Fantastic and the Invisible Woman joining the Avengers. However, Reed, used to calling the shots on his own team, didn't make a good follower when Cap was in charge. Resentment built between the two and then . . . nothing. Reed and Sue were sent packing without any explanation or pay off from the great emotional drama that had been building. It's a shame because in both instances there was a real opportunity to go above and beyond what was expected of a super-hero story and to address universal human conflict.

Oh, none of that was meant as an indictment of you or of associating racism with what the Avengers portrayed because those thoughts were certainly going through my head as I read the issues and wrote about them. So no harm, no foul.

Affirmative Action is/was not a fair policy/rule in that sheer ability wasn't the major determinant for employment, and it certainly engendered a lot of bile from white people who felt they were passed over because of it. But it also may very well have been necessary to ensure black people weren't automatically passed over and to make de-segregation more than just a concept. It's hard not to see how this bias isn't influenced by the white men who created the book and were angry about the policy.

^Actually, that was right before John Byrne was writing Avengers. It was Byrne (along with, I assume, the book's then-new editor, Howard Mackie) who took the Richards off the team and threw all that stuff out.

Thank you. That's a load off my mind.



And, once again, agreed.

Thanks for the correction, Fanfie. Again, I bow to your scholarly knowledge of creators.

The discussion over Affirmative Action reminds me of a scene in "All in the Family" in which Mike Stivic gets passed over for a faculty position in favor of a less qualified black candidate. When the dean informs Mike, he says the pendulum has swung so far in one direction that maybe it's time for it to swing in the other direction to set things right. Mike agrees philosophically, but that doesn't stop him from angrily and unintentionally breaking the window of the dean's door as he leaves.

It is strange that in attempting to set things right, the government and others in charge of hiring must inconvenience others who just happen to belong to the once dominant group. And it's a shame that such attempts to be fair ultimately cause more resentment and charges of unfairness. Perhaps some can say that white people now have a taste of what it's like to be black.

The "All in the Family" scene, though it concluded with a laugh, did a much better job of addressing these issues than Marvel did. And that's a shame because comics catch readers while they are very young and can truly make a difference.

Awwww...

You're welcome, and thank you for the compliment.

Good example of a better handling of the concept, Huey!

While it's clear that comics were decidedly meant for kids back in those days, it's also clear that comics were also starting to grow up at the same time. Big issues like drug and alcohol abuse and even racism were explored in some of the most well-remembered stories of that decade, so it's a shame that the Avengers dropped the ball on Affirmative Action. Even more disappointing when you factor in that Roger Stern, a terrific editor in his own right before turning to a great writing career, was the series editor for the bulk of the storyline and could have/should have steered Michelinie better. (Disappointing for Michelinie as well, given his involvement in Tony Stark's landmark alcoholism storyline.) So I won't give anyone involved a pass on this one.

I honestly get madder the more I think about it! I guess if I posted this publicly on Facebook or whatever, I'd be throttled for being a bleeding heart liberal! Truth is, I'm politically pretty moderate and only lean slightly left of center if I were graphed out.

^That's exactly why I avoid Facebook. I remember during my brief flirtation with Facebook, John Ostrander (who I'd friended) actually started a political discussion by saying he wanted it to be kept civil. No such luck. Within about three replies, it was off the rails.

Avengers: Heart of Stone (collects Avengers 188-196 & Avengers Annual #9)

So on April 8, I began this series of reviews with the Kree/Skrull War. Four and a half months later, I finally end the project and my quest to experience the 1970s in Avengers history.
It clearly didn't take me 4 and a half months to read all of those issues. Here and there, I was distracted by other projects that presented themselves, most notably a massive 10 TPBs of JSA-related material among others. But clearly the Avengers were a huge part of my Spring and Summer seasons, so it's nice to reflect back on the breadth of the project before finishing it off. And so we end with the TPB entitled "Heart of Stone". It is a series of issues without a unifying storyline as with the last couple of trades but not an unpleasant one.

188 picks off immediately where the Wundagore storyline left off and finds the Avengers dropping off Pietro on their way home. We touch base with the Inhumans and learn Crystal's in a family way. An interesting aspect underlining the warmth of these scenes is that Pietro and Wanda seem to have made up "off-camera" from their ongoing estrangement that dates back to the earliest Englehart issues and has been oft-discussed throughout these reviews. (Remember how chilly things were at Pietro's wedding?) They aren't full-on "hug it out", but neither is dwelling on their mutual hurt feeling, even though Pietro clearly still disapproves of her marriage to the Vision. I guess we can chalk it up to all the trauma they'd just gone through, but I would have preferred to see the twins have had at least a moment together where they agree to disagree or something.

After leaving Attilan, the group buzzes the Russian border and then decides to intervene when there's an incident at a nuclear power plant. The instigators turn out to be the Elements of Disaster. It's pretty common superhero fare, though well-drawn by Byrne. The possible ramifications of what might be an international incident between these Cold war superpowers are discussed in the dialogue but swept under the rug. Might've been interesting to see more, especially with Gyrich on the Avengers' tail.

Next up is Avengers Annual #9. Overall, not one of the better ones. It just feels like an extended inventory story, especially as it serves as a sequel to an Iron Man story that just pre-dated the classic Layton/Michelienie/Romita Jr. run. Written by Bill Mantlo, it is clearly a chance for him to tie up and pay off the one issue appearance of Arsenal in order to justify the threat the machine seemed to pose in that issue. Plus, the dialogue and captions seem hastily constructed to explain the absence of then-current Avengers like Ms. Marvel and the Falcon and the presence of Thor. (And apparently, the Avengers have been dreading the return of Arsenal ever since, even though it got nary a mention previously in their own title.) In the end all it takes is for Thor to get a decent shot at the robot. (sigh) Pretty decent pencils by Don Newton and a surprisingly emotional finale for Tony Stark (as a connection between Arsenal and his deceased parents is revealed) prevent this issue from being a total waste, though.

189 features a long-overdue Hawkeye spotlight as we get to see Clint in solo action for the first time (that I know of) in the Avengers title for the bulk of the issue, going against none other than Deathbird, who will soon be a part of the X-Men rogues gallery. Clint deals with his forced separation from the Avengers by getting a job in security with Cross Technologies. (If memory serves, this job plays a part in Hawkeye's life for a while longer, into the his '80s miniseries.) It's a nice romp and shows Hawkeye's ability to think on his feet. Plus, the literal kiss-off he gives Deathbird is classic Hawkeye!

It ends on an odd note, though, with Wanda having a desire to go on extended leave apparently being enough to set off Gyrich into court martialing the Avengers!

Next is the 2-parter that gives the trade its title, and sentimentally, it's my favorite part of the contents. The story features one of those comfort food Avengers foes that are almost always fun to see, the Grey Gargoyle. Just like the Absorbing Man, Graviton and the Grim Reaper, the Grey Gargoyle is a good smaller story threat that has his dramatic elements and provides a danger but doesn't require a prolonged amount of story space to tell.

As it runs out, this is the first time that GG (just as Creel and Graviton both did recently) faces the Avengers at large, but it won't be the last. It's an entertaining story that is well-drawn by Byrne, all framed between the Avengers trial that Gyrich made happen. With the build-up and some of the too-short courtroom dramatics we're treated to, it's kind of a shame that all it takes to exonerate and give the Avengers back most of their autonomy is their taking down GG. I mean, the Avengers take down worse threats very publicly all the time, so I don't know why this particular one was needed for this purpose or why that wouldn't already have been taken into consideration to preclude the trial. I suppose since it's Byrne's last hurrah on the book that closure on a big subplot was desired, but we could have had more drama and trial in that time instead of a whole issue of the Avengers discovering that GG was the bad guy. Despite those problems with it, I still enjoyed the use of GG and how well-constructed and choreographed the whole encounter was.

The next 2-parter feels like another inventory story, though it fits pretty well narratively with Michelinie still writing. But we have a one-shot threat overblown into 2 issues and separate guest artists on each issue. I think a more humanizing ending for this Inferno character would have stuck the landing a bit better. As it is, it's unsatisfying, and we have 2 issues devoted to a character who never appears again.

Finally, we end with 3 issues featuring the long-awaited return of George Perez! Again, Fickles' assertion that this era was graced with some jaw-dropping art to go along with mediocre stories is supported, though these 3 issues are pretty good and feature the first appearance of a familiar villain.

Issue 194 seems like it might be George's first draft of the later classic New Teen Titans story "A Day in the Life", as it features mostly the Avengers on their downtime, even advertizing the novelty of this on the cover. However, the Avengers appear mostly in costume, and a good number of pages are spent with a mysterious visitor setting up the next 2 issues, so it doesn't approach the classic Titans story that George and Marv will do a few years down the road. But there are hints of Cap and Carol flirting (we know this doesn't go anywhere considering carol's unfortunate storyline just around the corner) and even of a possible Vision/Jocasta pairing that would support my feeling from the last trade that there might have been an abortive push to break him and Wanda up. Plus, Falcon quits, as I alluded to previously and won't rant more about here. So really, there's not much of significance here that gets built upon.

It might be interesting to know where Michelinie might have gone with things if he weren't replaced by Shooter after 199. I don't know a lot about this, but I know that Michelinie initiated Carol's pregnancy and Shooter changed Michelinie's idea for the ending of it. I don't think it could have been any worse than what Shooter did, but it wasn't a great idea in the first place. In any case I don't feel like Michelinie ever wrote anything really great without Bob Layton co-plotting, in my experience. Even his great success on Amazing Spider-man wouldn't have been so without McFarlane and some other hot artists to make him look better than he really was--just as Byrne and Perez made him look really good during this Avengers run. That's my opinion on him, anyway.

So the last two issues continue to look really good with Perez on art, but some of the conceits to make the story work are pretty glaring. the Avengers send Hank Pym and Scott Lang in a mental hospital to find out if Jan is within, having been assumed to have pursued their mysterious visitor from last issue there after he claimed the people running it would kill him. So for the better part of 2 issues, the other Avengers wait outside while the other two check it out because if nothing's wrong inside, they will be breaking the law by rushing in. This continues, even after Hank and Scott are captured (along with already-captured Jan), and the Avengers haven't heard anything. Was their no plan to at least knock on the door after x amount of time? How about using a radio or emergency signal? It would've been easier to suspend disbelief if Hank and Scott had gone in independently, but you really have to turn off your brain as presented!

But the story gives us the visually-striking villain with staying power, the Taskmaster. Reading him here, though, it sure looks like Taskmaster is a rough draft of his later creation Deathstroke. I mean there are obvious similarities in their costumes and their abilities are compatible, though derived from similar sources. Obviously, artists tend to repeat particular design similarities in their bodies of work, especially when this large, but it seems pretty pronounced in this case. they even both seem to have the same sword.

One thing I've noticed, though, in the appearances of the Taskmaster that I've seen and is true here: his threat level seems overblown. He never really seems to give his opponents quite as much trouble as he's built up to. I mean, I'll grant you that it's realistic that he decides to flee when all the avengers charge in, but if you're going to have 2 issues worth of build up prior to this one, it would be nice to see more of a pay off. Again, maybe if the story only involved Wasp, Yellowjacket and Ant Man, this could've been avoided.

Still, very pretty to look at! How about that?

Overall, a fun final edition of my long Avengers reading project, though one that could have used some more juice in the plots than what it had. Lots of missed opportunities left on the cutting room floor. And really some of the best evidence yet for the prosecution that the stories in this era were written just for children. Funny thing is, the contents of "Heart of Stone" are still better than pretty much anything I've read with "Avengers" on the cover that's been produced in at least the last decade, if not the current century!

(I'll offer some concluding thoughts on the overall project after allowing some time for discussion on the issues reviewed in this latest write-up!)

Wow, Lardy, that's quite a wrap-up.

I have to agree with most of your points. This was a period in which the Avengers stories were solid but not spectacular. The Avengers were "old friends" to me by now, as I'd been reading their book for about six or seven years, and there was a comfort level in having Cap, Iron Man, Vizh, Wanda, Jan, the two Hanks, Simon, and (especially) Thor together. They were like my family: plenty of drama and people often walked off in a huff, but you knew they'd always come back.

(An aside: Shooter really shook things up in more ways than one when he had most of this line-up quit in # 211. Then of course came the controversial YJ-as-wifebeater storyline. I still have mixed feelings about all this, including some admiration for what he attempted to do in showing heroes with feet of clay. However, I agree with the general consensus that it was poorly executed.)

It almost didn't matter that the stories of this era weren't great because, as I said, the Avengers were like family--and they were certainly pleasant to look at, thanks to Byrne and Perez. At the time, I thought this was some sort of golden age for the Avengers. In hindsight, I agree that this period is largely dispensable.

It was, however, the last time I recall the series having both somewhat good stories and stellar art. After # 200, things just really fell to pieces, and though we had some good stories and some good art in the years which followed, we rarely had both at the same time. By 1983 or so, I kept looking for the next golden age of the Avengers, but I don't think it ever arrived, at least not for me. There were a lot of good stories in the decade or so which followed (I stopped reading the Avengers circa 1994), but whenever the book did seem on the verge of another Englehart-like renaissance, it proved disappointingly short-lived.

I and most Avengers fans would disagree, particularly pointing to Roger Stern's run on the book. It was definitely held back by subpar art, though, until the arrival/return of Buscema and Palmer to the book. There, for a good 30-odd issues story and art combined for one of the most well-remembered runs. Your mileage may vary, though.

Of course, Fickles and Cobie would point to the Harras/Epting era. I personally had already jumped off during the terrible Larry Hama run, but I've promised to pick it up if and when a suitable collection appears. It sounds like you were there for at least part of it, and generally, it's not a highly lauded era. But I trust the judgement of those two.

I would honorably mention Englehart's run on West Coast Avengers. Though the Milgrom art is nothing to rave about, Englehart once again rises above the artistic mediocrity for some memorable stories. It's not quite on the level of his first run, but it's a sentimental favorite from the era when I first became an Avengers reader.

And though Fickles hates it, I enjoyed the Busiek/Perez run starting with Heroes Return. In hindsight it's almost all pure fanwank, but there were a lot of good stories that are of course elevated by stellar art. In a way it feels like George's last big hurrah as his production really has decreased exponentially ever since. Plus, it feature virtually everyone you'd ever want to see in an Avengers line-up.

Interesting comment about Michelinie (among many other insightful comments). I was almost about to contest it, but then you further explain what you mean and I'm finding it hard to fault your logic. I loved his ASM work for a long time, but he had a slew of fantastic artists that really made the series special, most notably Todd McFarlane and Mark Bagley. ASM was always on the "art over writing" side for those years, as opposed to say, Spectacular, where J.M. Demattais' writing shined the brightest (over Sal Buscema art).

Michelinie eventually transferred over to DC to join the Superman titles where I also thought he did good work, but again he was supported by great artists (notably Tom Grummett, who I love) as well as the overall support system that kept the Superman titles at such high quality, which included Roger Stern and others. Even then, some of his issues during this run--the ones notably without Grummett--were among the weaker ones.

So, you may be right. He's always had strong support from co-writers and artists. On his own, it's hard to pin down anything incredibly noteworthy.

PS - I also disagree that post #200, the Avengers quality has never been very high again. The two main eras that contest this, which are two of what I think are the best eras of the franchise ever, are the Roger Stern era (particularly with Buscema) and Harras / Epting.

Even after my rereads of Englehart, Stern and others, I still feel Harras / Epting is a contender for the best the series has ever been. The only real contender is Englehart's run, but there is one critical difference: Englehart did not have a Steve Epting doing the art consistently and knocking it out of the park.

Who are "most Avengers fans"? Isn't that like saying most Legion fans would agree on something, anything? Unless you mean to imply that you, Cobie, and perhaps Fanfie represent a majority of Avengers fans.

I have some good memories of Roger Stern's run, though there were a couple of steps that just didn't click with me. One was the prominence of Starfox--who was a somewhat interesting supporting character in Captain Marvel (when Starfox was known simply as Eros), but whose charismatic power just didn't translate well in the Avengers, particularly with Milgrom's (going by memory here) bland art. I simply found the character annoying.

Also, the story line of Vision taking over the world's computers . . . while that may have been a logical extension of his abilities and was something Avengers stories had never addressed before, it felt all wrong for his character. The creative team seemed to be struggling to find something new to do with him and Wanda. (Once you get married in the comics, you become a boring old fart until your spouse dies or turns evil, it seems! )

I did like the addition of the Sub-Mariner (that was still Stern, wasn't it?) and his rivalry with Hercules, but, like certain other characters we've discussed, Namor was written out too quickly.

I do think the Masters of Evil takeover of Avengers Mansion was one of the highlights of this era.

As you note, though, Stern's era was often plagued by substandard art, which is what I meant above when I said that good stories and good art rarely coincided again.

As for Harras/Epting, that was circa '94, correct? Just about the time I dropped the book. I have very few memories of that era, though it may have to do more with life changes than the quality of the book itself. That was the year I entered grad school and was totally on my own for the first time. Though I tried to keep up with comics, it was financially difficult. And, even though the Avengers stories might have been good, I started to feel that I'd read it all before. The introduction of Swordsman II, for example, was one of those moves where I felt comics were starting to look backward instead of forward. I was always glad that Mantis and Swordsman had been consigned to the Avengers' past. Sometimes, you have to let a character's fate be final and move on. A new Swordsman seemed like an unnecessary step backwards. (However, I do acknowledge and respect the fact that you and others were introduced to the original Swordsman through the second one.)

As you said, though, your mileage may vary.

I did check out the first 19 or so issues of Busiek's run, and I agree with the "fanwank" assessment. It was good fanwank, but fanwank nonetheless.

West Coast Avengers, by the way, probably deserves a re-read of its own. If I had the time . . .

I actually love Avengers Annual 9, although I'll admit a lot of that has to do with Newton's art, especially the pages that Newton's good friend Joe Rubinstein inked. IIRC, Mantlo & Newton were originally supposed to be the regular team on the book, but their intended opening 2-parter was shelved for reasons that have never quite been made clear to me, and then unloaded in the Annual. Then Mantlo was supposed to take over the writing in the early 200s, with Gene Colan as regular penciller, but Mantlo got bounced off a second time, and Colan quit Marvel because of conflicts with Shooter.

I generally love the Pre-Bendis Hawkeye, but I don't like the Michelinie/Byrne issue that spotlighted him. I feel like Michelinie had no sense of what made Hawkeye tick, and having been previously introduced to Deathbird in Operation Galactic Storm and her X-Men appearances, it was jarring to see her so easily defeated, even if this story does chronologically predate her later, more ferocious appearances.

Overall, I actually think 190-191 and 194-196 are decent. Great art, a guest role for my beloved Scott Lang, the Gyrich plot thread is finally resolved, GG and Taskmaster make good foes (I had never thought of Taskmaster as a prototype Deathstroke until Lardy mentioned it, but it does make sense.) It's still lacking in grandeur, but it's palatable enough.

Michelinie's original plans for Ms. Marvel (impregnated by the Kree Supreme Intelligence) were, in my opinion, just as offensive as what eventually saw print. Jesus H. Christ, that level of misogyny is toxic! We probably would have gotten Claremont's story in Annual 10 no matter which version of the story ran, and while it repairs some of the damage, there's no getting around that the Avengers came off very badly.

I think the Vision-as-world-conqueror story works because he's literally not himself (his loss of his very sense of identity plays a crucial role in the story.)

The Roger Stern/John Buscema issues are gems to me, as is the Bob Harras/Bob Hall fill-in where Jarvis reminisces as he recovers from his beating at the hands of the Masters of Evil.

I'm not a fan of Englehart's WCA run. It's too weird, and too schizo in tone for my taste (I still think the rape of Mockingbird is just as offensive as that of Ms. Marvel.)

I've often compared the Harras/Epting run favorably to the Legion's Five Years Later era (even though I'm deeply ambivalent about 5YL), but lately I've been thinking that, if the Harras era is looked at as a whole, then a better Legion analogy would be the DnA era. Like DnA, Harras came onto the book after it had been through the wringer several times over. Like DnA, Harras made a bold change in direction that was not to everybody's taste, but those whose taste it appeals to are passionate about it and regard it as the last time the Avengers was a truly adventurous book. And, finally, like DnA, Harras eventually went into a tailspin where the book got so bad it was hard to believe it was the same writer(s). I'm tempted to also make an analogy of Epting's departure as being the equivalent of Coipel's departure from the Legion, but I won't, because I think DnA started to go off the rails as soon as they brought Ra's Al Ghul into the 31st Century, which was over a year before Coipel left.

Regarding Swordsman II, it's hard to justify his presence without spoiling some great story moments for people who haven't yet read that era. I will say that it's made clear this is a different man (they even have different civilian identities, and different lovers -- Swordsman II's lover, Magdalene, is a Big Barda analog.)

I don't see at all how the Harras/Epting issues could have a "seen it before" feel to them as He Who asserts, because I regard them as the most innovative Avengers stories since the heyday of Englehart (and, I think it's worth noting, Englehart drew on a lot of Marvel's past iconography, but gave it a fresh spin, just as I believe Harras & Epting did.)

As for the Busiek/Perez era, I think it's too kind to simply call it well-crafted fanwank. I believe that it betrays Busiek as an utter hypocrite, in that he claims to respect continuity, but is in fact selective of what aspects of continuity he respect, showing a blatant bias for certain eras while rudely dismissing other eras. Worst of all, I think it was Busiek who codified the lineup in the sense of "it's not the Avengers without..." For all the book's past ups and downs, there had always been a sense that the Avengers as a collective entity was something much stronger than who happened to be in the lineup at that time -- it's not like JLA, which lives or dies depending on how many of the Big Seven are present; the Avengers had been a different kind of superhero team book from the very beginning (witness the Hulk's quick departure, and the changeover from the founding members to Cap's Kooky Quartet. I think Bendis ultimately revealed himself to be as much of a sad, stick-in-the-mud fanboy as Busiek, and both in their own different ways did a terrible disservice to my favorite Marvel superhero team comic book.

In the Titans companion Perez says that he had designed the Terminator not long after he had designed the Taskmaster. As the two has similarities in occupation and weapons mastery, they had similarities in costume. What Perez didn't know was that the colourist would give the Terminator the same scheme as Task Master, making the similarities stand out even more.

All valid points, but it still went right over my head.