Crazyworld

Any fan of the X-Men can tell you that much of the foundation for those characters and their world was laid by writer Chris Claremont. Claremont, 58, had a 17-year run on “Uncanny X-Men,” which lead to the launch of a second title, “X-Men,” in 1991. He still write comics today, including “X-Men Forever,” which launched on June 10. He’s written nine novels, and is in the middle of a graphic novel trilogy that’s being released in France. “The Wanderers” will eventually be released in the United States, he said.

As is often the case, I was running a bit late for our phone interview, but Claremont didn’t seem to mind and he was polite and thoughtful. He’s a New York resident, and was about to leave to get on a plane for Charlotte, N.C., to be a featured guest at this weekend’s Heroes Convention. Claremont said the last time he was in Charlotte was in the mid-1970s, when he was doing dinner theater and on a bus tour of the southeast.

Herald-Journal: What’s it like for you to hit the convention circuit, to go out and interact with fans and other creators?

Chris Claremont: It’s something of an adventure. The thing about writing is that you spend all your time sitting in a room starting at a screen, playing in your imagination. You don’t interact with people on a regular basis. You observe them a lot when you’re out. But it’s... not an active, ongoing part of life. So, this is the opportunity to go out and see how people feel about the work, deal with the questions, hopefully, enjoy the praise, deal with any objections or concerns they might have, and do everything you can to inspire even more enthusiasm.

HJ: Are you talking about attracting new people to the medium?

Claremont: I would hope so. The subtext of every appearance is to interact with people who actually come to the convention, but also get them excited and enthusiastic about the work so they will go out and talk about it and create a sense of buzz among people they know, and perhaps inspire them to go to the store, and word-of-mouth it around. It’s essentially the same sort of buzz, if you were — for want of a better term — if you were J.K. Rowling, going out flogging the first Harry Potter.

HJ: Are you a Harry Potter fan?

Claremont: Envy, more than fan. It’s an interesting read. My kids prefer slightly different things, but on the other hand you can’t deny that kind of impact. And that’s the kind of impact every writer hopes to have in their heart of hearts.

HJ: But you’ve had that impact. I mean, 17 years on the X-Men... That laid the foundation for the entire mythology.

Claremont: Yes, but J.K. Rowling is copyright J.K. Rowling. X-Men is copyright Marvel Comics. X-Men has done very well the last 25, 30 years, but it’s Marvel’s property, and under Marvel’s direction. That’s why there’s a constant stream of writers taking over the canon.

HJ: When you first started, did you think your run would last so long?

Claremont: When I first started, we thought the industry was dying. No one had any idea this was the future. But on the other hand, 10 years ago, when I left, the book was selling over a half-million copies an issue. We just, with a new series we launched in 1991, sold 7.6 million out of print run of 8.5 million. And if you’d said to us then that within 15 years, Uncanny (X-Men) sales would be a fraction of that, none of us would believe you.

HJ: You’re talking about sales today.

Claremont:  Yes. The tide goes in, the tide goes out. We had a run where we thought every issue would be better than the issue before then. ... And then the first decade of the new century has been a struggle to hold our ground and avoid any further regression.

HJ: What do you consider a highlight of your run?

Claremont: It’s all very much of a piece. I find I can’t grab bits and pieces like that out. The fact that a substantial portion of my work is the foundation of the four X-Men films — and the character of Wolverine himself is essentially the character I created, that I evolved over years... So, that makes me proud. And, the success of the films is a way we’ve reached out to a much wider audience — a global audience. And the fact that the X-Men are one of the mainstays of the Marvel line. And no matter what they seem to do, they keep coming back to the tropes I created. …So I figure I must be doing something right.

HJ: Your new title, “X-Men Forever,” picks up on that story from 1991, right? Whose idea was that?

Claremont: It picks up five minutes later. It’s like any publishing decision. It’s a synergy between what I wanted to do, what the editor thought was cool and the publisher thought was a viable project. Like any writer, I made a whole list of pitches to my editor, he looked very thoughtful, as editors love to do, and sat down and brainstormed with other editors and the publisher, and this was the concept they thought most viable for the market.

HJ: How would you describe the book to someone not familiar with it?

Claremont: It’s a leaner, more focused, vision of the X-Men. We’re honing it down to a core group of characters, in a less cluttered and complicated environment then you might find in the other books. But, the other advantage that this series has, over Uncanny (X-Men) for example, is standing alone allows us to address realities about the existence of mutants and the future of them that are perhaps unavailable to the ongoing mainstream series, simply because they are ongoing and mainstream, and they have to keep the property going.

HJ: What do you mean by that?

Claremont: We can change the reality of their lives to an extent that the other series perhaps can’t, as we’re going to do right off the bat. Because the history we’re dealing with is a lot more focused, we have a lot more flexibility.

HJ: And that’s your history?

Claremont: Mine and Stan (Lee)’s and Roy Thomas’.

HJ: Anything you’d like to add?

Claremont: The advantage to me with “Forever” is, because we’re biweekly, we’re there. The readers don’t have to wait a month. But, by the same token, it allows us to pull in artists from literally across the board. And the second arc is being kicked off by Paul Smith and Terry Austin, who, you know, are still two of the best in the business.

HJ: Who is on the team?

Claremont: Cyclops, Jean Grey, Hank McCoy (the Beast), Nightcrawler, Kitty Pryde, Sabretooth, Rouge, Gambit… and a surprise.

HJ: Two of those characters aren’t around right now in the other books. Maybe three.

Claremont: It’s rebooting from X-Men No. 3’s perspective, so the Beast hasn’t been transformed as he has in “Uncanny.” Sabretooth, actually, given Liev Schreiber’s presentation of him in “Wolverine,” is a whole lot of fun in this series... and Nightcrawler has always been one of my favorites. And since the series opens up with murder of Wolverine, it’s essentially bringing together all of the characters in the X-Men who are closest to him. And they form the foundation core of the series. …In the next issue, the splash page leaves no question. But, again, that’s the advantage of “Forever.” We can take a character who is in every other series as unkillable. and say, “Surprise! This is not that reality.” This is a reality where they are all at risk. They are all mortal. And they, and the readers have to deal with that.

HJ: What kind of reaction or feedback have you gotten on the first issue?

Claremont: The first printing sold out. The first printings these days are nowhere near what they were back in the day, but we’re going back to press with it. And, again, with a biweekly release, if we can create enthusiasm for the series, that will inspire retailers to ask for more copies, and move more copies, and we can build from there. And that will make Marvel happy.

Just got a copy of a fundraising letter sent out by the new chairwoman of the S.C. Republican Party, Karen Floyd.

A couple of parts caught my eye.

On the nomination of Sonia Sotomayer:

"Just four months into his term, President Obama has show his allegiance to the Far Left by nominating one of their own, a little-known federal judge named Sonia Sotomayer, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It's not that she's unqualified, although she is.

"It's not that she's a blatantly politically correct choice, although she is.

"It's that her brand of biased touchy-feely social activism from the bench is exactly wrong, diametrically opposed to the Constitution and precisely what's wrong with the Democrats' love for legislating from the bench.

"That's no the American way, it's not how we do things in South Carolina, and there's a rising chorus of conservative voices..."

Now, this kind of firey political rhetoric would be expected from someone in Floyd's position. Just putting it out there for the sake of discussion.

Also, for some reason I've thought a lot lately about a survey of the North Carolina judicial system several years back. I wrote about it at my last job, at The Free Press in Kinston, N.C. The study found that pretty much everyone who had the court rule in their favor thought the justice system treated them fairly. It also found that those who were ruled against thought the justice system was skewed. What a worthless study.

One more excerpt from Floyd's letter (emphasis hers):

"Now our challnege is to raise the money to deliver our message in a loud and conservative voice, and right now, we lack the money to do that. The cupboard is bare."

Further, she asks people to "throw us a financial lifeline" for $100, $250 or $500. She states she's on a mission to raise $200,000 in the next 100 days.

Can't wait to see the disclosure form.

You might have seen the Associated Press story this week, "Another 'black man did it' hoax sparks outrage."

In a nutshell, a woman -- Bonnie Sweeten -- accused two nondescript black men of abducting her and her 9-year-old daughter. She was later found at Disney World (of all places).

The AP article is good, but basic journalism practices could have prevented this from happening in the first place. Such hoaxes cause tension between the races at a time when, it seems, that is finally starting to dissipate.

Now, this isn't meant to portray me, as a reporter, or us, as a newspaper, as perfect. I certainly don't read every single crime brief we have in the paper -- though I probably should, as they are often among the most-read items in the paper or on our Web site -- to make sure we always do the right thing.

And, when Susan Smith killed her children in nearby Union County in 1994, a similar scenario played out. Smith gave officers a vague description of a young black man who she said kidnapped her two boys, causing many real young black men in Union to feel uneasy stares and, collectively, to bear the burden of being wrongfully accused. Those feelings don't go away quick. One of my first assignments when I came to the Herald-Journal in 2004 was to write one of the 10-year anniversary stories on the Susan Smith murders. Many a black man still felt slighted.

But here's the thing: People give vague descriptions of suspects (or alleged suspects) in crimes all the time. I still look through stacks of police reports at least once a week. I can't begin to tell you how many times the suspects are listed as "two black males" or "two Hispanic males" or "two white males." Sometimes, that's the extent of the description. Sometimes, you get lucky and the fact that the culprits had on blue jeans or a white T-shirt is included.

One of the first thing they teach reporters in J-school -- and this follows the AP Stylebook, the Bible of the dos and don'ts of journalism -- is that the race of a suspect should only been used when a complete description of that man or woman (or men or women, you get the picture) is given. If a police report indicates a woman says a black man snatched her purse, what goes in the paper is "The woman told investigators that a man snatched her purse..." or something along those lines.

This is done precisely to avoid the painful fallout caused by the Susan Smiths and Bonnie Sweetens of the world.

If a suspect is listed as a 5-foot, 6-inch tall white man, likely in his early 30s, with short blond hair, weighing about 180 pounds with a tattoo of "MOM" on his right arm, then that information could ethically be used in a story or a brief. Why? Because that is a more complete description. There's a much smaller universe of people who are being singled out as having committed a crime.

Often, such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, sometimes with the consultation of an editor, as the level of detail people provide law enforcement with about their alleged assailants varies dramatically.

So, every reporter, print or broadcast, to cover the Sweeten story should have looked at the general description of "two black men," shook their collective heads, and simply printed, "two men."

That's how it works. That's responsible journalism. It would have saved a lot of people a lot of pain.

And perhaps the collective black male community should be just as outraged at those reporters as they are at Sweeten.