Elektra in Devil's Reign: X-MEN 2-3 flashbacks

[Clive_Reston]

So here's my argument, in brief:

Extra-diegetically, what clearly happened here is that Spider-Man got drawn wearing the wrong costume, because "the '80s." But the MCP's raison d'être is to find a way to make everything work diegetically whenever possible--which means coming up with the simplest possible explanation that's consistent with the story as printed, not just in its factual details but in its themes. (One way of thinking of it is "what's the explanation that would be most deserving of a No-Prize?") And precedent helps a lot with that, when it's available.

My "Emma misremembered visual details" argument relies on the precedent of UX@2 2--the one about Emma and Namor, which alternates between present-day sequences and flashbacks. The flashbacks appear to involve Selene, who can't have been present; the explanation/workaround is that that was actually Tessa, and Emma misremembered. (She got her mind scrambled by Phoenix in UX 131, again by Mastermind in UX 169, had another comatose episode ca. UX 281, was physically shattered and reassembled in NXM, was comatose AGAIN in SI:X... and the result of all that is that sometimes Emma remembers visual details wrong.) Note that the flashbacks in UX@2 2 are also just presented as being "the past" rather than "Emma's version of the past"... but they *can be* read as Emma's (visually unreliable) memories, which means that the story remains basically intact, it's just that Tessa did that stuff rather than Selene.

The simplest diegetic explanation for the black Spider-Man costume in the Devil's Reign: X-Men flashback is "present-day Emma is remembering visual elements wrong, as has already been established that she sometimes does." If that's the explanation, the story (both Duggan's and Miller's) otherwise proceeds as presented, with no additional continuity inserts or chronological displacements of decades-old scenes necessary.

That leaves the question of "when, during the period when Elektra was Kingpin's assassin, could the events of the FBs have happened?" As I mentioned above, the break between DD 178 and 179 could be fairly substantial. Elektra doesn't necessarily spend the whole summer with Isabelle, she just trains her--maybe a few times, maybe between her regular gigs in New York, the text is ambiguous. The next-issue blurb and cover art Leoparis mentions are extradiegetic (in the sense that they're not part of the story itself: it's fair to use them in an argument but they don't *have* to be accounted for). Likewise, the fact that James Wesley was working for the Kingpin at a particular time doesn't mean Flint wasn't (Flint's basically a goon, Wesley's a lawyer).

(Also: I should note that I'm REALLY enjoying this discussion, and I'm grateful to everyone who's chiming in with their thoughts!)

[Midnighter]

I point out that in the Italian edition of UX@2 2, since the first edition, they changed the name Selene to Tessa and the story worked perfectly, if they had not specified the error in the editorial of the issue the reader would not have noticed it (clothing of Selene and Tessa was quite similar).

In this case, such a change would not work.

I don't like the idea that Elektra was working for Kingpin again at that time, but it is actually plausible and allows you to place the flashback without having to "change" other elements of the story.

Unless future stories further change the cards, I think that Leoparis is actually the best solution. I don't like it, but it works best.

[StrayLamb]

Extra-diegetically, what clearly happened here is that Spider-Man got drawn wearing the wrong costume, because "the '80s." But the MCP's raison d'être is to find a way to make everything work diegetically whenever possible--which means coming up with the simplest possible explanation that's consistent with the story as printed, not just in its factual details but in its themes. (One way of thinking of it is "what's the explanation that would be most deserving of a No-Prize?") And precedent helps a lot with that, when it's available.
...
The simplest diegetic explanation for the black Spider-Man costume in the Devil's Reign: X-Men flashback is "present-day Emma is remembering visual elements wrong, as has already been established that she sometimes does." If that's the explanation, the story (both Duggan's and Miller's) otherwise proceeds as presented, with no additional continuity inserts or chronological displacements of decades-old scenes necessary.

In general, i tend to go along with Reston's viewpoint.

I think that Leoparis is actually the best solution. I don't like it, but it works best.

Yeah, i don't like it either, but it is well thought out, and he makes some good points in his latest post. Sitting on the fence here.

Otherwise we would need to go from 1982 issues to 1994 issues and Isabelle should have significantly aged.

Not necessarily. Franklin Richards was born in 1968, and was still only 5 years old in 1997 (FF3 6). Shogo's been a baby since 2013. Marvel long ago abandoned the four years to one ratio. Now it's more like 10 to 1.

(Also: I should note that I'm REALLY enjoying this discussion, and I'm grateful to everyone who's chiming in with their thoughts!)

Me too! People have different ways of looking at things, and sometimes the solution we settle on doesn't suit everyone, but everyone gets a chance to add their point of view.

[Leoparis]

I refrained from responding for a week to allow for feedback.

But first, credit where credit is due. I've seen people refer to this solution as mine. Jason's arguments convinced me his solution was preferrable. I had two different solutions which left Miller's stories untouched:
1. Elektra is actually Typhoid Mary posing as Elektra in order to trap Emma into kidnapping Isabelle. Even if this version corrects the plot holes from Duggan, it became implausible with the scene in issue 3. (Not impossible as protecting women is a trait of character of Mary.)
2. Elektra is Elektra's essence--that had been left in Garrett--transferred by the Hand into a soulless body and rechristened "Erynys". (So she is sort of Elektra, the splinter soul is seen reintegrating Elektra's body in DD 325. It requires reinterpreting the transference ceremony in Fall From Grace as flashbacks and imagining that the Hand would lend their Dark Elektra to the Kingpin. This involved more difficult assumptions than Jason's version.)

Regarding Emma as unreliable witness and the use of UX@2 2 as precedent:
I don't think that the change from Selene to Tessa required assuming that Emma's memories were unreliable. It derived from the fact that it cannot be Selene and that Selene and Tessa are visually similar and could be readily swapped (such as changing the name in translation). The black costume, on the other hand, is visually much dissimilar to the red-and-blue costume. The flashback in Devil's Reign: X-Men #2 shows that Emma can distinguish the red-and-blue costume from the black one. I can hardly imagine that she saw the blue-and-red twice but remembers it as two costumes.

By relying on an assumption ("Emma's history could lead to defective memories") we start from a weak foundation. We do not need to accept that assumption as changing Selene to Tessa does not entail that it was Emma's mistake either:

The use of the name Selene can be attributed to a number of other things than Emma's supposedly confused memories, such as a stage name used by Tessa in the presence of non-members (Namor). And even if we accepted the flashbacks in UX@2 2 as Emma's memories, "Selene" can simply be attributed to a slip of the tongue and/or to the specific mind-attack in UX@2 2 scrambling that one memory rather than to an unreliable mind for which there is no evidence. There is no mind-attack shutting down Emma in Devil's Reign: X-Men.

Conclusion: The flashbacks in UX@2 2 can remain "The past" rather than Emma's version of the past. I don't think we need to cross that line for either story.

Chronologically there has never been anything preventing Elektra from meeting the black costumed Spider-Man. She was only dead from DD 181 (Apr 82) to 190 (Jan 83). There were only implausibilities (which I readily pointed). But Jason addressed all of those. Here they are with additions and fine-tuning on my part:

1. The Kingpin knew where Elektra was to be resurrected (DD 190) and could make his play to recover his assassin.

2. By moving the epilog forward in time, we explain the red costume and the fact she is not yet part of the Chaste. Epilogs taking place in some distant future are customary (and certainly more acceptable than reinterpreting sequences as flashbacks or ignoring visual details).

3. Elektra kills in secrecy and even witnesses are to be eliminated so that her existence is kept secret (Devil's Reign: X-Men 1). Hence nobody could be surprised that she is alive. However she blows that cover by attacking the Kingpin's assassins and leaving some of them alive (Devil's Reign: X-Men 2).

4. Emma tells Elektra she cannot make her boyfriend love her (Devil's Reign: X-Men 2) even though DD was madly in love with Elektra during Miller's run (to the point of digging her tomb, DD 182). The only time when Elektra comes second is when Matt is with Karen (from DD 232, see also EL4 12). (I know that we could reinterpret it as Emma meant a different lover or as a joke.)

5. Elektra's inability to climb the ice wall had been attributed to her hateful disposition and Daredevil cleaned her of that (DD 190).

6. We even have dialog with Emma that Elektra is the merciful one (Devil's Reign: X-Men 2). Not only does she act to save Isabelle, she also teaches her how to defend herself (Devil's Reign: X-Men 3). She hardly seems to be the cold assassin she was in Miller's run (DD 174-181).

7. In Fall From Grace an assassin manages to climb the wall (DD 319), therefore being an assassin is not what prevents one to do so. So even as an assassin Elektra could climb that wall. She's also cast out from the Chaste so we have to wonder how clean she was (Fall from Grace TPB). The Chaste are also seen killing their enemies.

8. Emma can manipulate Elektra's mind into forgetting the events of DD 181 and 190. Emma is seen manipulating She-Hulk and Fury into not remembering and looking elsewhere. (Devil's Reign: X-Men 2)

Plus my specific answers to the latest objections:
9. I doubt that the black costume was drawn in error. I pointed, using both intradiegetic and extradiegetic elements, that the creators probably meant for the story to take place in the mid-80s. ("Sue Richards" is seen in the post-1983 negative costume. She-Hulk is in New York. Fury is from Reborn.) I think Duggan may have had a wrong chronology of Elektra, where Elektra: Assassin takes place before Fall From Grace (which is written as a sequel). In Fall From Grace dialogue from Fury says the events from Elektra Assassin happened during the last presidential election, which could forward that false impression. We see both Spider-Man's costumes, which makes both a confusion on Emma's part and an art mistake implausible.

10. Inserting Devil's Reign X-Men 1-3 during Miller's first run implies treasonous actions on the part of Elektra (protecting a witness and killing other assassins sent after her). And this is the other bad fit with 1981-82 stories: either Elektra suspiciously disappears to train Isabelle after Emma was seen intervening to take her away, either she leaves a means of contacting her in England that could be traced back to her and Isabelle. Imagining several such trips by Elektra to England to train Isabelle just makes it even more implausible, not less. So the events of Devil's Reign: X-Men can play as a more conclusive termination of Elektra's employ (after her resurrection) than her death.

Other--minor--arguments (but could be a clincher):
11. Kingpin does not have a replacement for Elektra until Typhoid Mary. This can be construed to mean he did not need one because he secretly had the original.

12. Comics are a visual medium and we must give priority to the black costume (and other mid-80s visual elements) over the consideration that Elektra working for the Kingpin occurred at a different time. (I usually refrain using the visual medium argument as it has too often been used to ignore the text but there is no text here contradicting the image).

There you go, I hope people keep enjoying this discussion.

[Jason Doty]

Thank you Leoparis. Your arguments are well thought out. Thanks specifically for taking my argument into consideration. I've always had the view of finding ways to be more inclusive helps to open up rather than constrict the ever growing Marvel Universe. No one knows what the next generation of writers and artists will bring to the table, but it helps to keep us on our toes, and opens up the fun for all fans of the project.

I'm always impressed with what everyone does here. -Doty

[Leoparis]

Discussion started before the mini-series was completed.
The obvious problem was a black-clad Spider-Man (1984-88) during the era Elektra was employed by the Kingpin (1981-82).

Col Fury and Clive Reston argued to dismiss the black costume as an art error and to place it among DD 174-181.
Jason Doty argued that it was the black costume and Elektra as shown.
Leocomix proposed two theories: It's another martial artist assassin impersonating Elektra (Typhoid Mary) or it's Erynye, the dark Elektra from Fall From Grace (DD 319-325).

With the publication of issue three and its humane Elektra, my theories became less plausible.

StrayLamb rallied to the Fury/Reston proposal.

But Jason answered back with a fierce defense, proposing to move the Epilogue from DD 190 further into the future, arguing that Kingpin knew of the Hand's attempt to resurrect Elektra, etc.

Abandoning my own theories, I reassessed the two remaining competing theories. I found that issue 3 also undermined the DD 174-181 hypothesis. And that even issue 2 undermined it since Elektra was overtly betraying Kingpin.

I rallied to Jason's theory and steelmanned (strenghtened) it. I also pointed at the inherent weaknesses of the DD 174-81 hypothesis. At that point Fury/Reston/StrayLamb had argued for dismissing the black costume and Jason/Leocomix for a mid-80s placement. The ratio was 3/2.

Then Midnighter rallied to our theory, which equaled the odds.

Then StrayLamb stated he was now on the fence.

I then explained that writer Gerry Duggan probably believed Elektra: Assassin took place after DD 190 based on its publication dates (Aug 86-Mar 87) and that it was thus not his intention to place his mini-series in 1981-82 as other elements pointed to the mid and late eighties.

The black costume was made in PPTSSM 99 (Feb 1985) and worn regularly from ASM 280 to 300 (Sep 1986 - May 1988) after the red and blue was destroyed in an explosion.

In his current Iron Man series, he's revisiting Iron Man's Silver Centurion (1986-1988) period with a fight vs. Emma Frost but this will likely not change the odds.

So we stand at 3.5 for the later 80s placement and 2.5 for the 1981-82 placement.

[Michael]

I just noticed another weird thing. In issue 3, we see a letter Emma left Isabelle and Emma writes that "I have no experience with children". But Emma was already running a private school in Uncanny X-Men 129. Did Duggan intend this to take place before Uncanny X-Men 129?

[Col_Fury]

re: Michael

[Jason Doty]

There is a difference between young children and teens. So I don't believe it was meant to be anywhere near X 129.