That's not a take I'd seen on the Life/Death parallel before, but I really like it! I'm not sure it's where Hickman's going, though. There have been a number of times that I thought he was going somewhere and he didn't - sometimes I agreed with those swerves, and sometimes not. Ultimately, yes, we are left hanging until it actually resolves. (I get you need to sell Secret Wars, Marvel, but still, argh!)
One of the things that I wish he would explore more, because it's all set up to do so, but he hasn't really addressed (yet - perhaps it will be when we hopefully, finally, get some resolution in Secret Wars) is the morality of action vs inaction. I thought he was going to explore this a lot because of setup... what the incursion situation basically comes down to is 'if you push this button, one world dies, but two universes live'. So do you push the button or not? Steve and co. are arguing that it is never moral to push the button - that it is in that action that immorality lies, that once you surrender hope, it's over. Tony and co. are arguing that inaction is just as bad, and hope is blinding. However, that narrative is framed in terms of destruction: push the button to destroy. But now we come to this lifeboat situation, where the problem becomes, 'if you bring Person X, then Person Y will die,' because there's only so much room on the lifeboat. It's the same idea - saving someone will result in the death of someone else, but it's framed in terms of saving being the cause and death the result, rather than death being the cause and saving people being the result. And so Steve&co don't balk at it. But is it actually, morally, any different? I really wish that Hickman would deal with this. He doesn't even have to pick a firm side, but right now the arguments can be made but aren't being made as to why this situation is different when Steve was so opposed before. Until that's engaged with, I'm finding Steve really unsympathetic in his motives as far as a moral stance is concerned. (And because his split with Tony is over morals... that undermines his 'right' to go after Tony.)
Agreed with you on Rhodey. And also Carol. Just, argh. But they don't have long philosophical arcs for me to go on about, so :P
I totally agree, the paralleling with the first issue really was well done, and emotionally that whole fight was super enjoyable. It's just that Steve comes across as... hmm, I need something more there to back up his reasoning.
(This ended up being less a direct reply to your comment than I'd set out to make it, sorry. It kinda swerved midway while I was writing it!)
no subject
One of the things that I wish he would explore more, because it's all set up to do so, but he hasn't really addressed (yet - perhaps it will be when we hopefully, finally, get some resolution in Secret Wars) is the morality of action vs inaction. I thought he was going to explore this a lot because of setup... what the incursion situation basically comes down to is 'if you push this button, one world dies, but two universes live'. So do you push the button or not? Steve and co. are arguing that it is never moral to push the button - that it is in that action that immorality lies, that once you surrender hope, it's over. Tony and co. are arguing that inaction is just as bad, and hope is blinding. However, that narrative is framed in terms of destruction: push the button to destroy. But now we come to this lifeboat situation, where the problem becomes, 'if you bring Person X, then Person Y will die,' because there's only so much room on the lifeboat. It's the same idea - saving someone will result in the death of someone else, but it's framed in terms of saving being the cause and death the result, rather than death being the cause and saving people being the result. And so Steve&co don't balk at it. But is it actually, morally, any different? I really wish that Hickman would deal with this. He doesn't even have to pick a firm side, but right now the arguments can be made but aren't being made as to why this situation is different when Steve was so opposed before. Until that's engaged with, I'm finding Steve really unsympathetic in his motives as far as a moral stance is concerned. (And because his split with Tony is over morals... that undermines his 'right' to go after Tony.)
Agreed with you on Rhodey. And also Carol. Just, argh. But they don't have long philosophical arcs for me to go on about, so :P
I totally agree, the paralleling with the first issue really was well done, and emotionally that whole fight was super enjoyable. It's just that Steve comes across as... hmm, I need something more there to back up his reasoning.
(This ended up being less a direct reply to your comment than I'd set out to make it, sorry. It kinda swerved midway while I was writing it!)