I don't have a bunch of links this morning, but something sort-of funny and potentially interesting occurred to me about a superhero comic book. Is it my imagination, or has Marvel's Cyclops actually become a pretty good character for that company? It seems that way. I don't know, I don't read a ton of those comics. But the former square-jawed honor student becoming a stone-cold terrorist kind of works in those comics, or at least it seems to. I'm sure there's a more than significant chance they'll back away from it after a while, if they haven't already.
One reason why that struck me as interesting despite not being a close-watcher of X-Men comic books is I that I suspect one reason this has worked for them is something that doesn't usually result in an advantage: a bunch of different writers adding elements and taking away from them with a character like that over a long period of time. In other words, we're talking accretion rather than a constant return to first principles. Doesn't that make sense that should be kind of interesting, this kind of grind and push and pull and what that does to various characters? Because it seems to me it rarely does. I'm not sure why that is. Part of it may be that these characters also work over time because of the power of their original conception, exacerbated by the fact that Jack Kirby was a foundational comics creator that frequently tapped into great ideas in a way that his were often the most powerful conceptions.