Reviews Comicbook / A Force

Accusations of Christ metaphors seem rather odd for a series written by a Muslim, but whatever.

My main problem with Loki being the traitor was that it's way too obvious. As for her characterization...I won't say I was fond of it, but this isn't main Loki, it's an alternate Loki. It's hard for me to accept that someone's being written out of character when they're not even the same person that we normally follow. True, I prefer Gillen and Ewing's Loki, but this isn't that character.

I disagree that Wilson can't write team books - the relaunch of A-Force set in the main Marvel universe (I'll call it 616 - they can't stop me! :P) has been very good so far. I'd say the main problems with the Secret Wars mini were that:

• It had a setting that was both temporary, came with a history that we weren't really privy to, and rather limited by the rules of Battleworld.

• A traitor reveal that was both obvious and not really built up well.

• A new character (Singularity) that we weren't allowed to get inside the head of, and thus one we (or at least I) had a hard time caring about.

The ANADM A-Force has none of these problems, and I'd definitely recommend it.

I only wrote about the secret wars mini because thanks to it I wouldn't touch the ANADM relaunch with a ten foot pole. And I was not aware that people can't use tropes outside of their own religion.

Kinda sad that I'm getting used to being accused of a young Loki fan (which admittedly I am) when I try to point out that this series breaks the character's customary standards ("Not destroying what they want to rule" - since Simonson at least. "being protective of their progeny" - at least since JMS)

But I don't have to reference anything from the main comics as this Loki is out of character in issue #4 even by the standard of "only stuff established in this comic" too. For example: She is Mistress of Secrets, why would she want to rule? (Getting a puppet on the throne maybe. Ruling herself not so much.) She loves her children why would she hurt them? (Outside of "it's Loki and that's what they do" which is untrue in several stories anyway.) That's a feat in a 5 issue mini and not a good way.

Motives. How do they work?

I'm slightly amused by the double standard though.

The twist being way too predictable depends on the reader knowing Loki's canonical backstabbing tendencies (if one doesn't it's just badly set up and comes out of nowhere). Why is counting on the bad qualities of a character more acceptable for people than on its good ones, I wonder?

A Us work by building on the canonical archetypes so actually expecting an AU character to follow the main universe tropes until something is set up to counteract them is perfectly normal.

It was not my intention to imply that Wilson couldn\'t use tropes used in a religion outside of her own - if it came off as that, I apologize.

That said, the Heroic Sacrifice is not a trope exclusive to the Bible, so I think that bit is...reaching. And also has little to do with the actual meat of your review?

I was kind of getting on your case there in regards to Young Loki (who I actually know more about than Classic Loki, so you probably have the advantage there). Sorry about that.

I\'ll admit you have a point with Loki\'s characterization within the context of the miniseries - the whole thing was a bit of a mess. I do think it\'s a fair assumption that most readers would know that Loki\'s typically untrustworthy, though - if not from the comics, then from the movies.

What do you mean by \"double standard\", though?

I\'m sorry to hear that you aren\'t interested in the current A-Force, though. Is there anyway I can convince you to check it out? I assure you as someone who agrees that the Secret Wars miniseries had some problems - the ANADM series has been really good so far.

The heroic sacrifice itself wouldn\'t have bothered me if it wasn\'t coupled with all the other shit.

I binged the whole run of Thor comics once. I\'m not proud of it. ^^;

Double standard might not be the best word for it. But people going by the character\'s most well known canonical characteristics while judging an AU version \"normal\", someone (in this case me) point out the nuance of said canonical version and get \"you cannot judge by canon! It\'s an AU character!\" (I also got accusations of Draco in Leather Pants in other forums).

Maybe I would give A-Force a chance if Singularity dropped dead (if I can\'t have justice I\'ll take vengeance. You found it hard to care for her because not seeing in her head. I came to loath her as her story stole pages that could be used to give more characterization, world building, motives and fleshing out the plot). But the solicits play the \"will she sacrifice herself (again)?!\" game which with high probability means \"no, she won\'t\".

"Maybe I would give A-Force a chance if Singularity dropped dead"

...That's a bit petty. She's really been quite likable so far, in my opinion. In any case, the solicits also make it pretty clear that no, there will be no need for a sacrifice.

As for Loki, I personally believe that when dealing with an AU version of a character, you don't have to use all of their canonical characteristics. Still, like you said, the characterization isn't really consistent within the miniseries itself, so I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Accusations of Draco in Leather Pants? For Loki, you mean?

I totally forgot about this. Sorry. ^^;

Yes. I admit that my hatred of Singularity is unreasonable and petty. It isn\'t really rooted in anything she is or does, more what the writer did to the story and characters for her.

My point is that in A-Force Loki\'s case for some reason expecting the bad was treated as normal while expecting the good was frowned upon by most people I talked with, despite the comic\'s best efforts of making the case for the opposite for 2 issues out of 5.

Actually let me reword that: For me who knows the character of Loki somewhat well meant giving G. Willow Wilson the benefit of the doubt and assuming those good qualities based on what she told me in those issues was an act of trust. Her going with the worst clichés in issue #4 was something like a betrayal to me (Yeah! You sucker who didn\'t go for the cheap and easy? Screw you! Why did you ever try to think?!). She didn\'t even bother to give a passable reason why as she was way to busy setting up her little OC... *Devolves into incoherent rage.*

Yep. The Draco in Leather Pants accusations I got for Loki. Despite that I\'ve no problem with him/her/them being cast as a villain... as long I get an explanation and motive that works.

Honestly, I had pretty much forgotten about this too.

I don't really have much of a response to this - I'll definitely agree that this wasn't Wilson's strongest work, although I don't dislike it nearly as much as you seem to.

That said, I'm enjoying the book as it is now, and I wouldn't mind seeing her try writing a team book again in the future - again, I think the failings were mostly due to the setting, rather than anything innate in the writer.

Her arc on the Adjectiveless X-Men wasn\'t much better either* (I\'m one of the half dozen idiots who actually stuck with that title until the last issue). But that was also plagued by incredibly shitty art so I blamed the art at first... then I read Battleworld A-Force. :/

• Tried to do a teambook while not having a team (there is some bickering in the beginning then the characters get separated and they don\'t get united until the end). Also a \"hole in the ground\" isn\'t exactly a riveting antagonist.