Welcome to unstablemolecules.com, the discussion home for mightyavengers.net, uncanon.com and uncannyxmen.net!

Alex and Lorna's research question

Level 10: In this section, people will argue about all x-related topics, such as certain character ages, continuity or the nature of the Phoenix. Newbies beware!
Post Reply
User avatar
nathanadler
Posts: 90
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 05:25
Location: Newstead
Contact:

Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by nathanadler » 12 Jan 2019, 07:49

What geological and archaeological anomalies were Alex and Lorna researching in the Rio Diablo Mountains of Northern New Mexico in X-Men #97 and again in Uncanny X-Men #218 (when hunted by the Marauders and where the Brood starshark vessel crashes)?

While the Rio Diablo Mountains were an extension of the Diablo Mountain Range in California where the Dreaming Celestial was sealed during the Second Host, UXM #97 was written in 1976, 2 years before Roy Thomas introduced the Celestials into Marvel continuity.

So given Claremont didn't intend it Celestial-related, what might have been in Rio Diablo desert (Devil's River) and New Mexico that Lorna and Alex kept going back to study?

User avatar
Jazzkantine
Posts: 470
Joined: 21 Aug 2018, 22:39
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Jazzkantine » 12 Jan 2019, 10:43

Didn’t you ask that before?

Anyway, Claremont used to be one of Marvel‘s writer with the longest ongoing writing gig on a series.
During his tenure, he created sub-plots and side stories, character based changes, etc. that he never followed up.

And whenever he got a new series, he liked to hint things that he never finished up. Just look at X-Treme X-Men, Excalibur, New Excalibur, New Exiles (ugh), later Uncanny X-Men . He always liked to introduce characters, power changes, events that he never finished because his runs ended early.

It often felt like placeholders, for things Claremont didn’t work out at that time himself.
Uncanny X-Force: Mimic, Omega, Timeslip, Siphon, Red Lotus, Grid, Frenzy, Savitar - (Shaara), Graymalkin, Nil

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2263
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Nu-D » 12 Jan 2019, 12:45

nathanadler wrote:
12 Jan 2019, 07:49
What geological and archaeological anomalies were Alex and Lorna researching in the Rio Diablo Mountains of Northern New Mexico in X-Men #97 and again in Uncanny X-Men #218 (when hunted by the Marauders and where the Brood starshark vessel crashes)?

While the Rio Diablo Mountains were an extension of the Diablo Mountain Range in California where the Dreaming Celestial was sealed during the Second Host, UXM #97 was written in 1976, 2 years before Roy Thomas introduced the Celestials into Marvel continuity.

So given Claremont didn't intend it Celestial-related, what might have been in Rio Diablo desert (Devil's River) and New Mexico that Lorna and Alex kept going back to study?
I already told you what I think. What do you think?

User avatar
nathanadler
Posts: 90
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 05:25
Location: Newstead
Contact:

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by nathanadler » 12 Jan 2019, 19:29

Jazzkantine wrote:
12 Jan 2019, 10:43
Didn’t you ask that before?
Yes, I did. Gibbering Fool directed me to post here instead of where I initially asked.
Nu-D wrote:
12 Jan 2019, 12:45
I already told you what I think. What do you think?
I don't. That’s why I posted the question.

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 18111
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Blackcyclops » 12 Jan 2019, 20:00

NuD prolly just thought you had a theory as well...
I'm Team Remender, Waid, Hickman and Gillen

My X-Men Draft Picks:
Prof. X, Legion, Polaris, Quicksilver, Meggan, Deadpool, Pixie, and Danger

User avatar
nathanadler
Posts: 90
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 05:25
Location: Newstead
Contact:

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by nathanadler » 13 Jan 2019, 00:41

Blackcyclops wrote:
12 Jan 2019, 20:00
NuD prolly just thought you had a theory as well...
Yep, I realise. It's been nearly forty years now and I haven't been able to figure one out. I have, however, determined the full details of Claremont's intention with Mister Sinister; same for the identity of Ororo's Bright Lady, so not a complete loss :)

User avatar
Lavettye
Posts: 29
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 18:33

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Lavettye » 13 Jan 2019, 15:50

I don't believe that there was ever any deeper intent for their research subjects. Alex and Lorna had been written out along the rest of the original X-Men, and when they appeared next, Claremont just showed they were doing "something" and filled in the blanks. Neither character had that much of an established background: Alex graduated from the fictional Landon college in New York in UXM #54, and Lorna's hometown was mentioned to be about 1200 miles from San Francisco in UXN #49, placing it somewhere in the midwest, or by the the border between Texas and New Mexico.

When Havok had previously left the X-Men in Incredible Hulk #150 (written by Archie Goodwin) he was shown to be living in a remote cabin in New Mexico, so apparently Claremont picked that up and had the couple move there again, this time also providing a "reason" for why they chose to live there. It was different from what the other senior X-Men were doing at the time, giving each of them their own little niche.

------------------

That said, nathanadler, I am having a hard time deciphering the actual point of your thread(s). The way you phrased it "What geological and archaeological anomalies were Alex and Lorna researching in the Rio Diablo Mountains of Northern New Mexico ?", it comes across as a factual question, with a clear definite answer: "It was never revealed on-panel".

Apparently that wasn't what you were after, so you moved the thread here, at which point you would have benefitted from rephrasing the question into "What do you think were the geological anomalies…. " or "What are your theories on the geological anomalies …" if that is what you are truly after. Going by some of your other topics, though, it seems you don't want just about any theories, but are looking specifically for what Chris Claremont had in mind. As such, your opening question or subject line should reflect that and be as specific: "What are your theories on what CC had in mind as the geological research subject … "

Such a discussion, though, is not really my cup of tea, as you'll never get a truly satisfying answer, unless the writer in question revealed his plans in an interview or a personal conversation. And even then you can't be 100% sure, as that writer might simply mis-remember things several decades later. After all, the writer's plans and intentions change over time, (as you yourself pointed out in another thread about Mystique's age) and to fully answer your question, it requires not only learning Claremont's intentions, but his intentions at the time of writing those scenes. And with that in mind...
I have, however, determined the full details of Claremont's intention with Mister Sinister; same for the identity of Ororo's Bright Lady, so not a complete loss.
… No, you haven't. ;) While you may have raised some good theories and educated guesses, unless you are Chris Claremont, you have no way of knowing that these are the "full details of Claremont's intentions".

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2263
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Nu-D » 13 Jan 2019, 20:22

@Lavettye,

I think your post is a little harsh. Nathanadler is just trying to spark conversations about X-Men esoterica. S/he may not be an author on par with William James, but there’s plenty of interesting stuff there.

Like I said elsewhere, though, we should consolidate the dozens of threads into a single “Speculation about Claremont’s Danglers” thread, and then maybe hone it into a “Danglers” article for the UXN page.

User avatar
Gibbering Fool
Posts: 3562
Joined: 09 Apr 2007, 03:10

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Gibbering Fool » 14 Jan 2019, 07:32

I have a suspicion they were studying rocks :P

User avatar
nathanadler
Posts: 90
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 05:25
Location: Newstead
Contact:

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by nathanadler » 18 Jan 2019, 10:27

Lavettye wrote:
13 Jan 2019, 15:50
… No, you haven't. ;) While you may have raised some good theories and educated guesses, unless you are Chris Claremont, you have no way of knowing that these are the "full details of Claremont's intentions".
Um, I'm sorry but I got to interview Chris directly (in three chapters/sessions), about his original run and he shared "full details of...[his] intentions" for a number of plots. If you read my X-Pressions topic "Wolverine's mother" I make that extremely clear!! In addition to his intention on this topic, he also revealed his full intention with regard to young Nate/Mister Sinister.
Nu-D wrote:
13 Jan 2019, 20:22
@Lavettye,

I think your post is a little harsh. Nathanadler is just trying to spark conversations about X-Men esoterica. S/he may not be an author on par with William James, but there’s plenty of interesting stuff there.
Thank you for your support Nu-D:) As for being a published author, I am but obviously not on par with Henry, William's brother (but like William, my first qualification was as a behavioural scientist and I later went on to qualify as a doctor of philosophy:)

User avatar
Lavettye
Posts: 29
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 18:33

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Lavettye » 18 Jan 2019, 23:14

nathanadler wrote:
18 Jan 2019, 10:27
Um, I'm sorry but I got to interview Chris directly (in three chapters/sessions), about his original run and he shared "full details of...[his] intentions" for a number of plots. If you read my X-Pressions topic "Wolverine's mother" I make that extremely clear!! In addition to his intention on this topic, he also revealed his full intention with regard to young Nate/Mister Sinister.
Going by your own posts, you claim to have interviewed Claremont quite recently. Yet, his initial run ended ended in 1991, which is 18 years ago. Additionally his run lasted 17 years and quite a lot of plans and intentions may have been adjusted or completely changed around during the long time he was working on the book. You brought that up in one of our own posts about Mystique's age. Another example would be the earliest plans for Wolverine's origin (an actual wolverine mutated by the High Evolutionary: https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-le ... evealed-21), which would never fit with the points you raised about Seraph.

Bottom line: Whether you like it or not, you only know what Claremont told you during that interview, but you don't actually know if those were really his full intentions back then (possibly misremebering due to the time that has since passed) and in quite many cases, there just might not be some single true answer for what his intentions regarding certain plot elements may have been.


That said, as for you "making it extremely clear" that Chris Claremont shared his plans with you… no, you didn't. You just say so. The interview may have happened or it may have not - at this point I don't really care either way. However, I read some of your essays at least partially, and I failed to see any clear separation between bits that Claremont supposedly did confirm and other parts which you added yourself, either to support the confirmed intentions or to provide further interpretations of your own. Why don't you just release a transcript of the interview, so that people can check for themselves what Claremont did or didn't say?

I'm positive that as a studied scientist you are aware how to present a thesis and arguements, and you also should be able to clearly specify the subject you are talking about. My earlier post wasn't meant to be harsh, but I stand by what I said there. Initially I was irritated by your threads, which since has turned into being annoyed. To me it seems like you ask a lot of speculative questions, but aren't interested in the other posters' ideas but only what the writer's (usually Claremont) intentions were while writing a specific scene. Well, how to answer that?

Already in your very first topic, BlackCyclops alerted you to that:
but that really can only work for an individual (and perhaps their projects and fan-fic) and not really make for constructive conversation with everyone else who follows all continuity, not just that of one writer who someone values over another.
to which you replied, that some other people with similar opions (meaning some other Claremont-only fans ?) might like to participate in your topics. However, as you are the self-proclaimed expert who knows all of Claremont's "full intentions", why should anyone else even bother to try answering? If you're so close with Claremont, then just keep asking the man himself.

User avatar
nathanadler
Posts: 90
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 05:25
Location: Newstead
Contact:

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by nathanadler » 18 Jan 2019, 23:43

Lavettye wrote:
18 Jan 2019, 23:14
Going by your own posts, you claim to have interviewed Claremont quite recently.
Despite you're not being there you are going to continue to, as Nu-D stated, be harsh toward me and challenge my claim to have interviewed Claremont. I conducted a 3 part interview, organised through his partner, Beth, the first part occurring in 2017 and the second and third parts continued in 2018 due to his scheduling. You weren't there, so I'd put my head back in if I were you re: calling it a "claim" as I find that remark offensive. You don't know me so to immediately launch into challenging my honesty is extremely rude!
Lavettye wrote:
18 Jan 2019, 23:14
Yet, his initial run ended ended in 1991, which is 18 years ago. Additionally his run lasted 17 years and quite a lot of plans and intentions may have been adjusted or completely changed around during the long time he was working on the book. You brought that up in one of our own posts about Mystique's age. Another example would be the earliest plans for Wolverine's origin (an actual wolverine mutated by the High Evolutionary: https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-le ... evealed-21), which would never fit with the points you raised about Seraph.
However Chris may have changed his plans, the latter is what he settled on and began establishing. So whatever.
Lavettye wrote:
18 Jan 2019, 23:14
Bottom line: Whether you like it or not, you only know what Claremont told you during that interview, but you don't actually know if those were really his full intentions back then (possibly misremebering due to the time that has since passed) and in quite many cases, there just might not be some single true answer for what his intentions regarding certain plot elements may have been.
How do you know I don't know what his "full intentions". I actually have recordings where, when he laid out his plan for me around young Nate he stated it specifically, and I quote "This was going to be the full truth behind his identity..."
Lavettye wrote:
18 Jan 2019, 23:14
That said, as for you "making it extremely clear" that Chris Claremont shared his plans with you… no, you didn't. You just say so. The interview may have happened or it may have not - at this point I don't really care either way.
What evidence do you want? And if I presented it, you say you don't really care either way. So if I uploaded a recording of Chris stating it, you would challenge it from the horses mouth. Yeah that's really logical. You're obviously wanting to pick a fight with me, as a new poster despite knowing nothing about me.
Lavettye wrote:
18 Jan 2019, 23:14
However, I read some of your essays at least partially, and I failed to see any clear separation between bits that Claremont supposedly did confirm and other parts which you added yourself, either to support the confirmed intentions or to provide further interpretations of your own. Why don't you just release a transcript of the interview, so that people can check for themselves what Claremont did or didn't say?
Each interview was 2 hours, so that's 6 hours in total and we covered a lot of ground. I work full-time, and study, and don't have a personal assistant. That's a lot of additional, individual, typing hours, and Blackcyclops is aware of my physical challenges around this and a range of access issues I experience around posting on this forum resulting in my getting a few things incorrect when I started. So I would continue to not go there with me on this latter point. Thank you in advance.

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 18111
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Blackcyclops » 19 Jan 2019, 00:38

I will say this: what Lavettye meant (at least in 1 part) is that it’s possibly impossible for someone for to truly recall something from decades ago without misremembering or altering their memories to fit preconceived notions or larger popular ideas...I do agree with that.
I'm Team Remender, Waid, Hickman and Gillen

My X-Men Draft Picks:
Prof. X, Legion, Polaris, Quicksilver, Meggan, Deadpool, Pixie, and Danger

User avatar
Lavettye
Posts: 29
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 18:33

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Lavettye » 19 Jan 2019, 00:43

nathanadler wrote:
18 Jan 2019, 23:43
Despite you're not being there you are going to continue to, as Nu-D stated, be harsh toward me and challenge my claim to have interviewed Claremont. I conducted a 3 part interview, organised through his partner, Beth, the first part occurring in 2017 and the second and third parts continued in 2018 due to his scheduling. You weren't there, so I'd put my head back in if I were you re: calling it a "claim" as I find that remark offensive. You don't know me so to immediately launch into challenging my honesty is extremely rude!
… and yet, you called it a claim yourself. :D
Indeed, I don't know you - that's why I'm cautious when it comes to accepting someone's say-so.
Regarding your opening line… if I had been there, I wouldn't question it, and if it never happened at all, I couldn't have been there. What's the point ?
So whatever.
That's a convincing arguement.
How do you know I don't know what his "full intentions".
Asked and answered above.
What evidence do you want? And if I presented it, you say you don't really care either way. So if I uploaded a recording of Chris stating it, you would challenge it from the horses mouth.
Me not caring either way at that point was refering to what I said right after, namely that I can't tell from your essays which parts are supposedly Claremont's confirmations and which are your own additions. As such, it wouldn't even matter if the interview took place or not, as it's not clear which parts were supposedly taken from the interviews.
I actually have recordings where,...
Vocal Recordings? So release them, and the matter is settled and you'll have publicly proven me wrong.
Written recordings, yeah…. not that much proof. But in that case you could at least try shedding some more light to the general situation. Right now I'm having difficulties picturing Chris Claremont agreeing to do three two-hour interviews with a fan who "writes some essays" on his work. Certainly you must have agreed on some things beforehand, like, if the contents of the interview could be released at all (and if not, why would he do the interview in the first place) and where and in what form the release would occur. Would he proofread the contents of the interview before release or not, did the interview take place in person, over the phone or just online via text messages, an so on.
Last edited by Lavettye on 19 Jan 2019, 00:46, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2263
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Alex and Lorna's research question

Post by Nu-D » 19 Jan 2019, 00:45

Yeah, I’ve often read Claremont’s later comments on his plans from BITD and thought he must be revising his memories. Indeed, sometimes he incorporates other writers ideas into the supposed “plans” he remembers having. I’d take any statements he makes with a grain of salt.

Edit: responding to BC.

Post Reply