Oh God, Not Another Stupid Claremont Plot

Guest columnist, Evan Grey, touches upon the iconography of Sage.

Note – This essay was written as a response to someone who accused critics of X-Men: Legacy of anti-intellectualism. As regular readers are well aware, Legacy is one of the favorite topics of discussion on our site. Here, Evan fantasizes about the inevitable inclusion of Sage in the saga of X-Men: Legacy. Evan has kindly permitted the cross-posting of his essay on this blog.

Wow, I’m glad somebody finally said it! All the crude readers of this book need to be taken down a peg or two.

I’m curious, since by the look of things, you’re into semiotics and the historicism of art, what reading do you garner from this?


At first glance, I personally thought: “Oh god, not another stupid Claremont plot”. On reflection though, there are so many powerful meanings that this master story teller has woven in here. For instance, with her bleeding eyes, Sage immediately evokes the idea of the Virgin Mary crying tears of blood:


Indeed, we see constant undercurrents of the holy Mary, blessed be her name, during Claremont’s depictions of Sage. We even see Sage give birth to a new and improved Beast, in her own kind of immaculate conception.


Of course, this comes with it’s own implications as there is a subtle yet brilliant commentary on the tensions within Christianity with the notion that the Virgin Mary gives birth to the Anti-Christ!


Astounding indeed! It does not end there, however, for with the naming of Mary we see a powerful comment on the Mary Sue cliche. CC clearly was writing back a powerful narrative for his audience.

Of course, there is another reading I am in favour of – a Freudian one. Freud constructed his notion of gender and sex with the Oedipus (and by extension the Elektra) concepts where the vagina is seen as a castrate. This begs the question: are Sage’s bleeding eyes symbolic of menstrual flow? Are Sage’s eyes really a representation of bleeding vaginas which, when they ‘flash’ and catalyse a mutant, give birth from their castrated orbs??

It’s little nuggets of meaning like that which make me appreciate the X-men so much, especially X-men: Legacy. It’s so rich and full of meaning where it covers the great expanse of X-history. I can’t wait until it gets to covering the time of Sage, someone who Xavier desperately needs to make amends to, so that we can have these notions further explored. I have faith that Professor Carey will uncover the roots and motivations behind Tess Niles and, like Claremont, use her as a springboard to discuss the deep and meaningful issues of religion, sex and genre. What are your thoughts on the matter? I’d love to hear them. I’m so glad that there’s another reader out there just like me!

Evan is an on and off cultural studies student with a liking for extraordinarily bad comics, high literature, independent music and big meaty cocks. He happens to live in Australia.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Oh God, Not Another Stupid Claremont Plot”

  1. Chad Says:

    While this is a fascinating intellectual exercise, there is one glaring error that needs to be addressed:Immaculate conception does not refer to the conception and gestation of Jesus Christ. Rather, it refers to Mary herself being conceived without original sin in order to be a pure enough vessel to carry God made flesh.In light of this, your comments on the transformation of Beast fall from stunning intellectualism to poorly-researched sarcasm.Alas.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Boo Chad,I’m sure even Jesus Christ would agree that Beast sucks.love, JAU

  3. darknessatnoon Says:

    Since Sage is a perfect character (the writer made Flesh), I see no discrepancy.

  4. Chad Says:

    Then perhaps you need to learn how to read English in addition to reading High Sarcasm.An unrelated aside: I used to kind of believe you and JAU when you would speak of your fondness for things that are wildly unpopular (Sage and Claremont respectively). But now I find myself thinking that everything you two say is completely sarcastic.

  5. darknessatnoon Says:

    LOL! Undeserved hostility.Perhaps you should learn a little about ambivalence. Hating Claremont while loving Sage gives me only a tiny space to maneuver my tone of voice.Consider thinking a little about your tone of voice.

  6. Evan Says:

    Excellent catch, Chad! Perhaps Claremont was actually trying to comment on the farcical beliefs about Jesus’ birth, how the masses are *wrong* about the Catholic Church?Of course then we look at the technicalities, an immaculate conception is a birth of one without sin. Could Claremont also be saying that Jesus truly was a sinner? That it was not a truly immaculate conception and a false messiah? This reading would make a great deal of sense with his inclusion of the Anti-Christ in the scene!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: