Thursday, February 2, 2023

The Legacy of the Black Widow

 

Recently we've been tracking the involvement of Natasha Romanoff, the Black Widow, in the ranks of the mighty Avengers: First, her long road to formal membership on the team, only to then reconsider and decline active participation in the group... and then, taking a look at her sparse appearances in the book until 1991, when she accepted a spot in their primary lineup which coincided with the team's new charter under the United Nations. Eventually, she rose to the position of team leader, which took her to the end of the book's run in 1996 and the fateful encounter with Onslaught, the evil amalgam of Charles Xavier and Magneto--a battle which would effectively bring Natasha's tenure as Chairwoman, and the Avengers, to an end.


Yet it wasn't until the 1999 Avengers Annual that we discovered the mystery surrounding Natasha's rather lackluster state of mind following the announcement of the Avengers not only being discovered alive but intending to resume their team's activities and sift through a cattle call of 39 prospects in settling on a new lineup--a gathering that she departed rather than put herself into contention. As team leader at the time of the Onslaught attack, how did she move forward following the "deaths" of her comrades? And what became of her own team of Avengers--or, more to the point, the few who remained?



With the team's ranks nearly decimated in the aftermath of Onslaught, presumably there were a number of thoughts running through the Black Widow's head at such a time--the burden of responsibility and "survivor's guilt" no doubt being among them, having focused her efforts on patrolling the city in order to render help to panicking New Yorkers* while the founding members (along with the Scarlet Witch, the Vision, Quicksilver, the Fantastic Four, et al.) kept a rendezvous with the X-Men who were engaged with Onslaught himself. And now, in the aftermath of that struggle, she almost reflexively addresses the foremost and unfortunately only item on her agenda--the preservation and reformation of a fighting team now bereft of those who kept its spirit alive.




(Narration courtesy of none other than Jarvis, the Avengers' butler.)


*A confusing choice on the part of Scott Lobdell (co-plotter) and Mark Waid (co-plotter/scripter). Wouldn't the team leader place herself at the forefront of the main conflict with Onslaught, rather than focusing on civilian search and rescue tasks? Could no other Avenger(s) have been assigned to street duty? It's difficult to buy Natasha beating herself over the head over what happened to the Avengers, since she had no input on whatever was decided on the battlefield.

Coming up empty on recruitments, Natasha turns to her former partner for consolation and advice, someone equally adept at being a shoulder to lean on when she needs to express her feelings on matters that trouble her.


It's all well and good for Daredevil to say comforting sentiments along the lines of "if you need me, I'm there," empathetic words to offer someone in crisis but often lacking conviction from a concerned party whose intention may only be to offer an ear to bend. It's something we could easily test: Would Daredevil have agreed to become an Avenger if Natasha had broached the subject with him? Who here believes he would have said "yes" in a heartbeat?

As it stands, there are still two active Avengers present, which makes only three in all--a state of affairs which has only occurred once or twice in the past and which obviously takes precedence to rectify. But with Quicksilver's reaction to the latest post-Onslaught development, that number reaches a low point not seen before; and combined with the news Natasha receives from a representative of the Maria Stark Foundation, she sees no further recourse for the Avengers.



(Kudos to artist Leonardo Manco on drawing our attention to Jarvis's expression upon hearing Natasha's decision.)

Mr. Chesney's news is obviously meant to be the final straw as far as Natasha's frame of mind on the subject of the continued viability of the Avengers--though if I'm not mistaken, the Avengers at this point in time were no longer subject to government oversight but were a unit functioning under the auspices and charter of the United Nations, which means the government and Congress had diddly-squat to say about the circumstances of their lineup (unless they did so through their U.N. delegation). If memory serves, the team didn't revert back to their association with the National Security Council until the relaunch of the book in 1998. (If someone can enlighten me on facts to the contrary, you have the floor. :D )

Be that as it may, the closing scene of this flashback lines up with the '98 Avengers #1, where we're told that S.H.I.E.L.D. had been using Avengers Mansion as its New York base of operations. Unfortunately, it also heralds Natasha's state of resignation that sets in following the step she felt obliged to take regarding the Avengers and their affairs.


As we discover in this annual, Jarvis's narration of the entire story is part and parcel of a letter he's been penning to an unknown party, whose identity is revealed on the final page and in a way serves as closure to the hanging mystery regarding the Black Widow's disappearance from the Avengers' ranks (the story idea reportedly originating from Kurt Busiek). In addition to the nice touch of Jarvis not forgetting how deeply the experience affected Natasha's confidence and self-worth, there's also symmetry with a scene that occurred roughly thirty years prior. (In an establishment where the same proprietor still tends the counter. Having the God of Thunder as a customer has obviously been a boon for business.)


Good heavens! Jarvis's penmanship isn't in cursive?
What's the world coming to...


7 comments:

  1. I'm surprised Jarvis uses a comic-book font for his letters, Comicsfan.

    Is it really a confusing choice by Lobdell and Waid to have the Black Widow doing search and rescue? What could she have done to Onslaught?
    I'd say it makes more sense to question why she was Avengers leader in the first place. Tbh, I'd go a further, and ask why she was a member - I mean, whats the point of someone without superpowers even being in a team that includes the likes of Thor, the Scarlet Witch, the Vision etc?

    Not complaining about the Widow as a character particularly, but it just makes more sense for her to be hanging around with Daredevil, or involved with SHIELD in espionage-type stuff.

    -sean

    ReplyDelete
  2. By those standards, Sean, why have Captain America or Hawkeye? A shield or some arrows aren't fantastically superior to the "Widow's Bite" blasters. Back in these days, the Black Panther had yet to have his current vibranium mesh armour costume or other toys. So, another "powerless" hero.

    There has been some tone that Black Widow and Daredevil was an awkward pairing, but I always loved the idea. A perfect team-up for my money!

    ReplyDelete
  3. In one of the panels Jarvis looks like the actor Anthony Hopkins who played a butler in the film 'The Remains Of The Day' in 1993. Coincidence?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well Murray, Captain America has super-strength, although I appreciate it varies quite a lot in the comics, so we might have different ideas about quite how super. But he should be the baseline - less super-powered than Cap, and you shouldn't be an Avenger imo.

    Whats wrong with getting rid of Hawkeye? He obviously shouldn't be there.
    Come on, what does he bring to the Avengers table? Oh look, its Kang, Ultron or whoever - quick, get the fella with the bow and arrow to save the day... No.

    The Panther is a borderline case. Being monarch of a technologically advanced nation is a kind of power, so he's not just some geezer after a few days in the gym or whatever. I incline to no, but its arguable.

    I like the Widow with Daredevil too. He certainly shouldn't ever be an Avenger.

    And before you ask, Rick Jones shouldn't even be around the mansion. At all. Ever.

    -sean

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, you got in there while I was replying to Murray, Comicsfan.

    On 'diverse talents'... yeah, if the world needs a super spy the Black Widow should join SHIELD - isn't that what they're for?
    Carol Danvers is different. Ms/Captain Marvel is definitely Avengers material.

    -sean

    ReplyDelete
  6. (amended comment below--when will I learn to edit? :) )

    My understanding of Natasha's leadership position in the Avengers, sean, is that she had been appointed as Deputy Leader by Captain America, and then simply segued into the role of leader when Captain America departed the team over the Avengers' part in the execution of the Kree Supreme Intelligence. (I may be a little off in my facts, so someone will have to correct me if I skipped a beat here or there.)

    You raise a fair point about where her strengths truly lie--like Carol Danvers, her leanings are in the world of espionage and covert operations. That said, however, the Avengers are made up of members with diverse backgrounds and talents (Iron Man and Dane Whitman, for instance, are also valued for their knowledge of technology and science, respectively, aside from their prowess in battle), and I would argue that the ability of Natasha (as well as Carol) to handle herself in a fight as well as size up and map out a plan against the opposition make her a valuable asset to any team, SHIELD included. I'm not sure what form her decision(s) would take in regard to confronting Onslaught in battle--but thanks to Lobdell and Waid, we'll never know, will we?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I take your point, Comicsfan - that a big part of super-hero comics is that ultimately they win because of their brains, resourcefulness, determination or whatever, rather than their powers as such.
    But they do still need those powers against threats designed to make things difficult for them.

    I'm reminded of Murray's comment from a couple of weeks back about Iron Man fighting alien invaders being like a 16th century knight going up against a SWAT team.
    When a writer is already asking you to suspend your disbelief to that extent, how do non-super Avengers fit in? If even Thor - a deity that can survive the rigours of outer space - is the underdog in a fight, how do Lobdell and Waid plausibly write a glorified gymnast with espionage skills surviving more than a couple of minutes?

    Someone like Roy Thomas could get away with that kind of thing in the late 60s... but after thirty years of super-hero comics moving toward greater 'realism' it doesn't make much sense imo.

    -sean

    ReplyDelete