InsaneJournal

Tweak says, ""Om nom, steroids!""

nonners (nonners) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-08-18 23:26:00

Entry tags:

char: scarlet witch/wanda maximoff, group: avengers, title: avengers, title: west coast avengers

Wanda thinks about her children (and doesn't go crazy!)
Don't have the issue numbers on hand - but it's basically Avengers West Coast and Avengers v3. Also not as comprehensive as I'd like. Sorry. :(

First off - the time when Agatha sealed off Wanda's memories. Obviously, it didn't stick.

See that? That way may lie madness... but she's not mad.

Wanda takes a level in badass.

And finally, from Avengers v3 (where some of the best Wanda comes from, IMO)

(Post a new comment)

	sandoz_iscariot 2009-08-19 06:39 am UTC (link)
	But, but...wimmens is womb crazy! (Reply to this) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-08-19 07:20 am UTC (link)

As others wiser and more versed in Marvel lore than I have pointed out, JLA/Avengers offers the perfect out. Busiek establishes that DC chaos magic is vastly more powerful and dangerous than what Wanda is used to manipulating; she's overwhelmed the first time she touches it, and every time she uses it she gets visibly more weak and sick and fucked-up, as she struggles to hold on and her teammates worry desperately at each other.

Obviously, some of that lingered when she returned, the way Flash's Speed Force connection lingered for a short while after hopping over to 616, and it made her both more powerful and more crazy than prior characterization could possibly justify. No muss, no fuss, no chance of regression, and it can even explain Strange's patently false "there's no such thing as chaos magic" thing, like somehow he's understanding them to mean DC chaos magic, which of course there isn't such a thing, at least not in his multiverse.

The womb-crazy then just becomes some sexist idiot character's misinterpretation of events, and not the actual truth of the matter, alleviating at least some of the tedious sexism.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlbarnett 2009-08-19 12:09 pm UTC (link)
	they could even use the fact that there was a period during the crossover where the kids existed again. That could be a mental trauma that required the memory blocks to be put back up. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Yeah, steverodgers5 2009-08-19 05:27 pm UTC (link)
	That's the way I like to look at it as well... It's very strange how DC don't seem to have much in the way of problems with allowing some of their crossovers with marvel to be canon in their own continuity, but Marvel seems to take the exact opposite stance.. A little bit annoying actually.. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	neuhallidae 2009-08-19 05:28 pm UTC (link)
	Personally, I liked the "What If"s explanation for Strange. Namely, he wasn't even there at the time, and the Strange who said such a patently stupid thing was another of Wanda's illusions, possibly out of a subconscious knowledge that she'd hurt people she cared about and needed to be stopped because she could no longer control herself. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

bruinsfan, 2009-08-20 11:41 pm UTC

	neuhallidae 2009-08-19 06:47 am UTC (link)
	Thankee! I might still try to get hold of those scans, just for more context, but this is great! (Reply to this)

aaron_bourque
2009-08-19 08:12 am UTC (link)

. . . I just had a terrible terrible thought.

Wanda's children were retconned to "not exist" until Young Avengers . . . which grew out of Avengers Disassembled, which was when Wanda was revealed to be god hax crazy enough to create an alternate timeline.

It could be that Tommy and Billy . . . are a result of Wanda's god hax crazy, and don't "really exist" the same way House of M doesn't exist.

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; I need to go to bed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	midare 2009-08-19 09:31 am UTC (link)
	D: Now the possibility is going to haunt me. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	volksjager 2009-08-19 01:23 pm UTC (link)
	I recall it was causually suggested that Wanda may have caused the Asgardian Ragnarok as well. Did anthing develope of this at all or just left as a tangent???? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

ashtoreth, 2009-08-19 02:36 pm UTC

(no subject) -

halloweenjack, 2009-08-19 05:23 pm UTC

	xdoop 2009-08-19 03:52 pm UTC (link)
	I doubt Heinberg would do that. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

aaron_bourque, 2009-08-19 05:20 pm UTC

(no subject) -

xdoop, 2009-08-19 05:58 pm UTC

	foxhack 2009-08-19 04:25 pm UTC (link)
	God HAX Crazy? Well, that certainly spins a new light on this icon... (Reply to this) (Parent)

idreading
2009-08-19 05:00 pm UTC (link)

Well yeah, that's one possibility. It'd explain why the twins are older than their cousin. (I forget Quicksilver's daughter's name at the moment.) In this scenario, they still have demon souls, and Mephisto may come after them.

Another possibility is that the twins are real, and Wanda gave them up for adoption. She then repressed the memory and created the false twins out of guilt.

Hopefully if we get YA season 2 they'll explain it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? jazzypom 2009-08-19 08:29 am UTC (link)
	How does that work, then? Has anyone ever explained the biology behind that, or is the defence of 'magic is science as yet discovered' going to be the default reason here? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? interrobamf 2009-08-19 08:40 am UTC (link)
	I believe the original explanation (before the "your babies are actually parts of a demon and are now this wacky guy's hands" thing) was that Wanda willed herself to have babies. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? requiem2adream 2009-08-19 08:49 am UTC (link)
	She didn't have Vision's children. They where portions of Mephisto's soul, which Wanda's magic captured and made into babies. Or something like that. Vision had nothing to do with the 'conception'. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

And that was... considered okay? -

jazzypom, 2009-08-19 08:53 am UTC

Re: And that was... considered okay? -

requiem2adream, 2009-08-19 09:00 am UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

icon_uk, 2009-08-19 11:34 am UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

requiem2adream, 2009-08-19 11:38 am UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

jlbarnett, 2009-08-19 12:16 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

requiem2adream, 2009-08-19 12:28 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

jlbarnett, 2009-08-19 12:30 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

aaron_bourque, 2009-08-19 01:34 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

icon_uk, 2009-08-19 01:45 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

jlbarnett, 2009-08-19 12:10 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

icon_uk, 2009-08-19 09:07 pm UTC

	Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? kusonaga 2009-08-19 08:49 am UTC (link)
	That was kind of the point of the matter. It shouldn't have been possible and ultimately, wasn't. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android?

icon_uk
2009-08-19 11:31 am UTC (link)

In "simple" terms, the Vision is more than an android, he's a synthezoid, his synthetic technology mimicking in every respect that of an organic being. Thus he has sperm, little techno-sperm to be sure, but sperm nevertheless, and which were just like human sperm.

Wanda used her hex magic to manipulate the (admittedly low) probability that such a techno-sperm could fertilise her. The twins grew from the resulting pregnancy, mutant DNA and synthetic DNA creating life.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

jlbarnett, 2009-08-19 12:10 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

icon_uk, 2009-08-19 12:32 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

jlbarnett, 2009-08-19 12:45 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

toasty_fresh, 2009-08-19 12:51 pm UTC

	Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? aaron_bourque 2009-08-19 01:35 pm UTC (link)
	But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? Don't you know anything about science? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

volksjager, 2009-08-19 02:23 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

aaron_bourque, 2009-08-20 06:34 am UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

bruinsfan, 2009-08-20 11:48 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android?

halloweenjack
2009-08-19 05:34 pm UTC (link)

Another alternative (not used in the comic, but science fiction writers, James Tiptree, Jr. in particular, have used it for decades) is parthogenesis, which is not supposed to be possible in mammals, but Wanda is a mutant, after all. Of course, then Vision wouldn't be the biological daddy, and Simon Williams wouldn't be able to donate, probably, because he's an energy being, but whatev.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

strangething, 2009-08-19 10:27 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

halloweenjack, 2009-08-19 10:59 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

bruinsfan, 2009-08-20 11:54 pm UTC

Re: But... how can she have children if Vision is an android? -

btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-23 05:25 am UTC

	tahngarth 2009-08-19 12:15 pm UTC (link)
	I have to say that, despite the horrible awful art of it, the extremely obscure Scarlet Witch mini-series you showed scans from above really gave Wanda more respect and integrity than she's usually given. Heck, even Force Works did. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	nonners 2009-08-19 02:25 pm UTC (link)
	True that. People seem to forgot these days that one of Wanda's main characteristics was the strength of her character and her immense willpower. She was chairwoman of the WCA and was nominated to lead the main Avengers, for Chrissake. These days, it's all "she's craycray". (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

jlbarnett, 2009-08-19 05:42 pm UTC

	ashtoreth 2009-08-19 02:40 pm UTC (link)
	Agatha Harkness is a dick. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	vitruvian23 2009-08-19 03:17 pm UTC (link)
	I don't know about that, but I do find it highly suspicious that this ancient witch whose origins we really know very little about has managed to be closely associated with not one, but two mutants with potentially unlimited reality-altering powers. Don't forget, before becoming Wanda's tutor, she wangled the job of Franklin Richards' nanny. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

icon_uk, 2009-08-19 03:28 pm UTC

	xdoop 2009-08-19 03:54 pm UTC (link)
	I think Bendis was trying to do a commentary on the original story where Wanda's memories of her children were erased, like Avengers Annual #10 was a commentary on how Carol was raped and the Avengers didn't do anything. He just didn't know it had already been dealt with by another writer. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	neuhallidae 2009-08-19 04:43 pm UTC (link)
	As I said in the other post, the continuity errors wouldn't have been so galling, at least for me, if he hadn't tossed in those pages of Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch's original joining of the Avengers as a "Look, see, I know exactly what I'm doing and it totally fits!" moment. I would have just rolled my eyes at the way the story was handled and moved on. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

starwolf_oakley, 2009-08-19 06:04 pm UTC

(no subject) -

neuhallidae, 2009-08-19 06:38 pm UTC